get_whois

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the output contents (registrant info, nameservers, dates) and implies a read-only lookup, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior for invalid/unknown domains.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by output summary and use case; every sentence adds value.

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 low-complexity tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential action, outputs, and use cases. It could be more complete by noting response format or errors, but the main context is present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond calling the resource a domain, which keeps it at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get WHOIS registration data for a domain.' It distinguishes this from sibling domain tools by focusing on WHOIS registrant info, nameservers, and registration/expiration dates rather than general domain intelligence or history.

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?

It gives clear context: 'Useful for investigating domain ownership and detecting newly registered suspicious domains.' This implies when to choose the tool, though it doesn't name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.

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