whoismd_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add useful traits: it identifies the API as public (implying no auth), notes SSRF-safe IP resolution, and states the risk score is deterministic (0-100). However, it says nothing about rate limits, error behavior, or cost, which are relevant for an external API call.

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 tightly written sentences that front-load the core purpose and then enumerate the return payload. Dense but no filler; the enumeration of DNS record types is arguably more detail than an agent needs to select the 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?

For a single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what data comes back (registration, DNS, IP, risk score) and that the response is JSON. It omits the response shape, but given the tool's simplicity and that no output schema exists to defer to, this is a minor gap.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully (including the example and length bounds). The description adds no parameter-specific syntax beyond what is structured. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ("Perform a full domain intelligence lookup") and enumerates the exact data categories returned (WHOIS/RDAP, DNS records, IP resolution, risk score). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling whoismd_bulk, though the singular "lookup" vs "bulk" naming implies the distinction.

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 scope is implied to be single-domain analysis via the required domain parameter, and the sibling name (whoismd_bulk) hints at the batch alternative, but the description never states when to use this tool versus the bulk variant or any preconditions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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