whois_lookup_by_ip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination ('page number for paginated results') and source filtering, which adds some context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'lookup' but not confirmed). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters and an output schema.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return value. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, it lacks context on error cases or performance considerations, which could be useful for an agent.

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 compensate. It effectively explains all three parameters: 'ip' as the target for lookup, 'page' for pagination, and 'source' with specific filter options (arin, ripe, etc.). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., IP address validation) or default behaviors beyond null defaults.

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 the tool performs a 'WHOIS lookup by IP address or IP range,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'whois_lookup_by_domain' and 'whois_lookup_by_asn' by specifying the IP-based lookup, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other IP-related tools like 'get_ip_info' or 'get_ip_ranges' in the description.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where other tools might be more appropriate, such as using 'get_ip_info' for general IP details or 'whois_lookup_by_domain' for domain-based lookups. Usage is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated.

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