Whois Lookup

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about querying an external WHOIS server, rate limiting/blocking by registries, or that results vary by TLD/RIR. It also doesn't note whether private IPs simply fail. For a network-facing tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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 short sentence with the key scope ('domain or IP') front-loaded and no filler. It is terse rather than padded, though that terseness is what costs it elsewhere.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only lookup with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the core intent is covered. Missing are the operational realities (external dependency, rate limits, failure modes) that an agent needs to use it reliably.

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 coverage is 100%: both `query` (domain or IP) and `timeout` (seconds, default 30) are documented in the schema. The description only restates the query type, adding no format examples or timeout-behavior context, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: a WHOIS lookup on a domain or IP address. That distinguishes it from the other DNS-resolution siblings (dig_query, nslookup_query, host_lookup) by protocol, 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?

No guidance on when to pick this over nslookup_query, dig_query, or host_lookup, and no mention of when WHOIS is inappropriate (e.g. private/unroutable IPs). The agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.

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