whois_lookup

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about rate limits, registry timeouts, redacted privacy fields, or what the response looks like. 'Public' is the only behavioral hint, which is not enough for a network-facing lookup tool.

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 tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. There is no wasted text, though the terseness contributes to the gaps elsewhere.

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 read tool with no output schema, a single sentence is close to adequate, but the absence of annotations means the agent gets no signal about safety profile, response shape, or error behavior.

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% and the single parameter 'domain' has no description in the schema, but the prose phrase 'for a domain' at least identifies what the input is. It adds no format guidance (bare domain vs URL vs punycode), so it only partially compensates.

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 ('Look up') and resource ('public WHOIS registration data') scoped to a domain, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like dns_lookup or reverse_dns, though the WHOIS resource is distinctive enough in practice.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'public' hints that privacy-redacted registrant data is what to expect, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over dns_lookup or check_ssl, and no mention of TLD support or failure cases.

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