whoisInfo

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and 'Look up' conveys only read-only intent. It does not disclose whether the tool works for any domain or only domains owned by the user, whether raw or parsed WHOIS data is returned, or any rate-limit or authentication requirements.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words, and the supplementary API-reference URL is compact. It delivers the essential purpose immediately.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a rich sibling set, the description is too thin to fully equip an agent. It omits usage context (e.g., account ownership requirements), behavioral caveats, and what the result looks like — leaving the agent to guess when this tool is the right choice.

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% — the domain parameter is already described as 'Domain name' — so the baseline is 3. The description's 'for a domain' re-states the parameter's meaning but adds no format or syntax details beyond the schema, which is acceptable given 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Look up WHOIS data for a domain'), making the tool's core function immediately clear. It is implicitly distinct from all 70+ siblings since none of them reference WHOIS data, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getDomainInfo or checkRegisterAvailability. The only auxiliary content is an API-reference URL, which documents the endpoint but does not help an agent decide between this and sibling lookup tools.

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