wwhois.ru domain tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific data fields returned (country, region, city, ISP, organisation) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or error conditions. Given the strong annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core function and lists output fields without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with a clear output schema, the description, combined with annotations, covers the essential usage. It specifies the input type and output fields, and the annotations provide safety and idempotency. Nothing critical is missing, though it could mention error cases or fallback behavior, which are likely covered by the output schema.

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 already describes the 'ip' parameter with an example. The description adds that both IPv4 and IPv6 are supported, which is not present in the schema. This is useful additional meaning beyond the schema's basic type description.

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 a specific action (geolocate) on a resource (IP address) and lists the output fields (country, region, city, ISP, organisation). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like whois_lookup and punycode_convert, which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage for obtaining geographic and network provider information from an IP address. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like whois_lookup, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. The clear purpose allows inference, but explicit guidance is missing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavior beyond that, specifically 'both directions, auto-detected, but it does not describe output shape or invalid-input handling, which keeps it from rating higher.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action and scope with no filler. The terms 'both directions, auto-detected' are compact and meaningful, so the description is efficiently structured.

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 one-parameter, idempotent, read-only conversion tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It could add normalization or URL-handling details, but these are not essential for this simple converter.

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 description coverage is 100% and the value parameter already includes concrete Unicode and ACE examples, so the schema handles the parameter semantics. The description reinforces but does not materially extend meaning beyond what is already documented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Convert a domain between Unicode (IDN) and Punycode/ACE (xn--) form.' It explicitly covers both directions and is clearly distinguishable from the sibling lookup tools ip_geolocation and whois_lookup.

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 conveys clear usage: use it when you have a domain string in either Unicode or ACE form and need the other form, with direction auto-detected. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the siblings are unrelated lookup tools, so the usage context remains clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the scope of behavior: it returns a registration-state classification and the full raw registry record, and supports 1400+ zones including IDN/Cyrillic domains. No contradictions or hidden side effects are apparent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by output details and a notable capability (1400+ zones, IDN). Every sentence contributes useful selection and invocation 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?

Given the low parameter count, complete schema coverage, robust annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what a caller needs: domain input, expected result categories, and supported zone coverage. It is not verbose, and no critical missing context stands out.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented with an example and IDN guidance. The description's mention of IDN support is somewhat redundant, so it adds little beyond the schema, earning the baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Look up WHOIS/RDAP data for a domain') and lists concrete output categories (registration state, registrar, dates, name servers, status). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools ip_geolocation and punycode_convert, which target different data transformations.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need domain registration WHOIS/RDAP data, including IDN zones. It does not explicitly spell out 'when not to use' or name alternatives, but the domain-specific scope makes the intended use unambiguous against the siblings.

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