list_supported_tlds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns a 'complete list' but doesn't specify format, size, pagination, or performance characteristics. It doesn't address whether this is a cached list, real-time query, or has rate limits. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that directly state what the tool does and what it returns. Every word earns its place - there's no redundancy, fluff, or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates essential information.

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?

For a simple list operation with 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate but minimal information. It covers the core purpose and return value but lacks details about parameter usage, response format, and behavioral constraints. Given the low complexity, it's minimally viable but could benefit from more context about the 'limit' parameter and list characteristics.

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?

The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. While it doesn't explicitly mention the 'limit' parameter, it states the tool returns the 'complete list of TLDs', which implies the parameter might be optional or for pagination. The description adds meaningful context about what the tool returns, partially compensating for the schema gap. With 0 parameters documented in schema, baseline would be 4.

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 clearly states the specific action ('List all supported TLDs') and resource ('TLDs that have WHOIS servers available'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'refresh_whois_servers' and 'whois_lookup' which perform different operations. It explicitly defines what the tool returns ('complete list of TLDs that can be queried'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'whois_lookup' or 'refresh_whois_servers'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone. While the purpose is clear, there's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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