RDAP/WHOIS lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: what signal is returned for dropping domains (redemption, pending delete) and that marketplace links are for manual checking rather than any automated acquisition. No mention of rate limits or behavior for unregistered names.

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 sentences, no filler. The core value proposition (what fields you get back) is front-loaded, and the aftermarket-link caveat is correctly placed second.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return payload, which is its strongest contribution. However, it leaves the includeRawWhois parameter and the behavior for unregistered domains unexplained, which are gaps an agent needs filled before calling.

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 0% and the description mentions neither parameter. The boolean includeRawWhois is completely undocumented, leaving the agent unable to judge the cost/size tradeoff of enabling raw WHOIS output. Only the obvious 'domain' input is implicitly conveyed.

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+resource: registration details for a domain, then enumerates the returned data (registrar, created/expiry dates, status codes, nameservers, drop signal, marketplace links). This clearly separates it from dns_lookup, check_availability, and ssl_certificate by content, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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: look this up when you need registration/ownership data for an existing domain. There is no guidance on when to prefer it over check_availability or dns_lookup, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. domain must be registered, TLD must support RDAP).

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