contrastapi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but reveals nothing about caching policies, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling behavior. It does not indicate whether the response is raw WHOIS text or structured data.

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?

While extremely brief, the description fails to front-load actionable information, effectively wasting its single sentence on a tautological categorization ('Endpoint') rather than functional specification. The brevity reflects underspecification rather than efficient communication.

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 complete absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the two-word description 'Whois Endpoint' is entirely inadequate to support correct agent invocation or error handling for this security/reconnaissance 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the 'domain' parameter (empty string), and the description adds no compensatory semantic meaning about valid input formats, accepted TLDs, or whether subdomains are handled differently than apex domains.

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 'Whois Endpoint' restates the tool name without clarifying the specific action performed (lookup/query/retrieve) or distinguishing it from sibling domain intelligence tools like dns_records, domain_report, or ip_lookup. It fails to specify what WHOIS data is retrieved or its intended use case.

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 the numerous sibling alternatives that also accept domain inputs. There is no mention of prerequisites, rate limiting considerations, or when to prefer this over domain_report for comprehensive intelligence.

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