NameBeta 域名查询

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses key behaviors: spaces are stripped, .com is used as primary unless a TLD is present, already-domain values are used as-is, and the response always includes specific availability data. It does not mention rate limits or error conditions, but the core behavior for a read-only lookup is well covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, purpose-first, and every sentence adds value: purpose, guaranteed return fields, invocation trigger with examples, and normalization rules. It contains no fluff or repetition of schema details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Since there is no output schema, the description explicitly lists what the tool always returns, including registration/expiry dates and available domains. It also explains how user input is preprocessed and how defaults are chosen, covering all the important runtime behavior an agent would need to call and interpret the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies; the description adds meaningful context on top: it explains how the keyword gets normalized (spaces stripped) and when tld is applied, clarifying real-button behavior beyond the schema fields. The tld behavior is also connected to the 'already a domain' rule, which helps the agent choose correct values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the exact operation (querying NameBeta's full suffix list for a keyword) and defines the expected outputs: total suffixes, registered vs. available counts, taken domains with dates, and the complete available list. It is specific and does not merely restate the tool name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says 'Call this whenever the user types a keyword, brand, product name, or domain' and gives concrete examples ('google flow video', 'naruto character generator'). Even without siblings, the trigger condition and input scope are unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.