Four tools with clear action verbs and reasonable descriptions (avg 180 chars). All have input schemas with type definitions and parameter descriptions. However, output schemas are undocumented (only text responses visible), and error handling lacks recovery guidance. Parameter constraints are mostly absent (no enums, ranges, or format specs). Tool composition is sound but descriptions could be more prescriptive about when to use each tool vs. alternatives.

• Return structured JSON objects with fields: domain (string), available (boolean), tld (string), registrar (string), expiry_date (string). Document this schema in tool descriptions so LLMs can extract and chain data.
• Add parameter constraints: domains array max 50 items; max_variations 1 - 100; tlds array max 30; name min 1 char, max 63 chars, alphanumeric+hyphens only. Use Zod refinements or JSON Schema constraints.
• Enhance error messages with recovery hints: 'Invalid name: must be 1 - 63 alphanumeric characters. Try: check_brand_domains({name: "nexflow", tlds: [".com", ".io"]})' instead of bare 'Error: name must contain...'
• Clarify tool selection in descriptions: 'Use check_domains when you have exact domain names ready. Use check_brand_domains to test one brand name across many TLDs. Use suggest_and_check_domains to brainstorm variations.'
• Expand list_supported_tlds description to explain grouping (e.g., 'Returns TLDs grouped by category: generic (.com, .net), geographic (.uk, .de), trending (.ai, .gg), niche (.dev, .app). Call this to discover available TLDs before checking.')