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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the cost ('[호출당 100포인트]') and the breadth of queryable targets including AS numbers. It still omits behavior on invalid input or rate limits, but the paid-call disclosure is valuable context beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the English purpose followed by a faithful Korean restatement plus coverage and cost notes. Every sentence carries information, though the bilingual duplication slightly inflates length for a one-parameter tool.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description states the return content (registration and ownership information) and the supported query scopes, which is sufficient for a single-parameter lookup. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema's generic 'domain or IP' by declaring that AS numbers (AS9318), .kr/.한국 domains, and domestic IPs are all valid address values. That expands the accepted input semantics for the single parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('WHOIS lookup for a domain or IP address, returning registration and ownership information') and is easily distinguished from siblings like nslookup and reverse_ip by the WHOIS resource itself. An agent can identify what it does without opening the schema.

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 enumerates the input scopes it supports (.kr/.한국 domains, domestic IPs, AS numbers like AS9318), which implies when it is the right tool, but it never names an alternative such as nslookup or reverse_ip, nor states any exclusion. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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