whois_lookup

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

The description only states a simple read operation without disclosing behavioral traits such as network dependency, rate limits, error scenarios, or return format. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but provides minimal context.

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?

A single sentence, no filler, front-loads the purpose. Very concise and well-structured.

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?

The description is sufficient for basic understanding but lacks usage guidance and behavioral details. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, it could be more thorough, yet the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, read-only) makes it minimally viable.

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?

The schema parameter 'domain' has no description (coverage 0%), and the description's 'for a domain' merely restates the parameter name. It does not specify required format, examples, or constraints (e.g., whether to include 'https://' or subdomains).

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 uses the verb 'Get' with resource 'WHOIS registration data for a domain', clearly specifying the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dns_lookup and ip_geolocation by focusing on WHOIS registration data.

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 dns_lookup or extract_url_metadata. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to avoid this tool.

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