edf_whois_lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it discloses the output shape (conservative classification, native evidence, optional raw text) and explicitly bounds the tool's claims with 'No expiry-history or purchase guarantee', which is exactly the kind of limitation an agent needs.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by output and limitation. No filler, and every sentence contributes something an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 steps in to sketch the return value (classification, evidence, optional raw text), and the annotations cover the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain, such as expected domain format and failure behavior, which are acceptable for a low-complexity, two-parameter tool.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. 'optional raw text' maps reasonably to include_raw, giving some semantic value, but the required 'domain' parameter gets no format, normalization, or accepted-input guidance anywhere.

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 and resource (WHOIS lookup for a single domain) and signals scope with 'for one domain'. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like edf_dns_lookup or edf_check_domains by the WHOIS resource, though it never names an alternative 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling lookups, no prerequisites, and no exclusions for usage. The closing caveat about expiry history and purchase guarantees constrains expectations of the output, not the choice of tool.

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