recon_whois

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds value by explaining that the default output preserves registrar, dates, nameservers, statuses, and DNSSEC, and that include_raw retrieves boilerplate/legal text. However, it does not mention error behavior, access requirements, or potential rate limits, leaving 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 concise and well-structured with clear 'Purpose', 'Constraints', and 'Example' sections. Every sentence provides useful information, and the front-loaded purpose makes the tool's function immediately understandable. No filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, default output, include_raw usage, and gives an example. An output schema exists, so return detail is less critical. However, extra_args is unexplained, no relationship to sibling tools is noted, and the lack of any usage guidance for a recon tool in a broader security context leaves it somewhat incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The domain parameter is clear from the example, and include_raw is explained with a condition. However, extra_args is entirely undocumented, and its purpose cannot be inferred from the name or description. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with only three parameters.

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 clear, specific action: 'Collect WHOIS registration data for a domain.' This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like recon_dns and recon_amass, which target different DNS/asset data. The example further reinforces the intended usage.

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 a conditional hint for include_raw but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as recon_dns or recon_amass. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where another tool would be more appropriate.

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