whois_domain

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the operation (RDAP/WHOIS lookup) and output fields, indicating a read-only action. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, failover behavior, or data freshness. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence efficiently conveys purpose and return data without unnecessary words or repetition. Every part 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 1-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and return values sufficiently. It lacks error handling or special cases but is largely complete for a basic lookup.

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 100% with the 'domain' parameter well-described as 'Domain name to look up'. The description adds only context ('RDAP/WHOIS lookup for a domain') beyond the schema, which is marginal. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it performs an RDAP/WHOIS lookup for a domain and lists the returned data (registrar, dates, nameservers, contact entities). This verb+resource+scope is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like whois_ip (IP lookup) and others.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vt_domain, osint_domain_recon, or st_whois. It lacks when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite instructions.

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