Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• whois_domainC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('looksup') but doesn't describe what information is returned, potential rate limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably queries external WHOIS data.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what WHOIS information is returned, how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema has 0% description coverage, so the single 'domain' parameter is completely undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'domain' but provides no additional semantics about what constitutes a valid domain (e.g., format examples, TLD requirements, handling of subdomains). This doesn't adequately compensate for the schema gap.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb ('looksup') and resource ('whois information about the domain'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (whois_as, whois_ip, whois_tld) beyond the domain focus, which prevents a perfect score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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 its siblings. It doesn't mention alternatives like whois_ip for IP addresses or whois_as for autonomous systems, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

• whois_tldC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only lookup, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. 'Looks up' suggests a query operation but lacks operational details.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a sibling-rich context, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what whois information is returned, error conditions, or how it differs from other whois tools, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but doesn't. It mentions 'TLD' generally but provides no details about the 'tld' parameter format (e.g., valid TLD strings like '.com', case sensitivity, without leading dot). The schema only specifies it's a required string with minLength 1.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('looks up') and target resource ('whois information about the Top Level Domain (TLD)'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like whois_domain or whois_ip, which would require a 5.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (whois_as, whois_domain, whois_ip). The description implies it's for TLDs specifically, but doesn't clarify use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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

• whois_asC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 states the tool performs a lookup but doesn't describe what the lookup entails (e.g., external API call, rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error conditions). For a tool that likely queries external whois databases, this lack of operational context is a significant gap.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the key information. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant phrasing.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's likely complexity (external whois query), absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover what information is returned, how results are structured, potential limitations, or error handling. For a network lookup tool that agents might use in troubleshooting scenarios, more contextual information would be valuable.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool has only one required parameter (asn). The description adds minimal semantics by indicating the parameter should be an 'Autonomous System Number (ASN)', which aligns with the schema's pattern constraint. However, it doesn't explain the ASN format beyond what the regex implies, nor does it provide examples or usage context for the parameter.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Looksup') and resource ('whois information about the Autonomous System Number (ASN)'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like whois_domain or whois_ip, but the focus on ASN provides implicit distinction. The description avoids tautology by specifying what information is retrieved rather than just restating the tool name.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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 its siblings (whois_domain, whois_ip, whois_tld). It doesn't mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only implied usage is for ASN lookups, but without explicit comparison to other whois tools, the agent must infer the distinction based on parameter types alone.

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

• whois_ipC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a WHOIS lookup, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what specific information is returned. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured to include key details, but it avoids redundancy and stays focused.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (a network lookup tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what information is returned, potential errors, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic details. The description adds minimal value by implying the parameter is an IP address, but doesn't explain format expectations (e.g., IPv4 vs. IPv6) or usage context. Since schema coverage is low, the description partially compensates but not fully, aligning with the baseline for moderate coverage gaps.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb ('looksup') and resource ('whois information about the IP'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like whois_as, whois_domain, or whois_tld, which appear to handle different types of WHOIS queries. The description is specific enough to convey the tool's function but lacks sibling distinction.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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. It doesn't mention sibling tools or suggest scenarios where whois_ip is appropriate compared to whois_domain or whois_as. There's no indication of prerequisites, limitations, or context for usage, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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