webcheck_whois

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the endpoint path ('/whois') and the data type, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or error behavior. This is consistent with annotations, with minimal added 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?

The description is a single concise phrase that front-loads the key information. It is efficient, but slightly terse; a full sentence with a verb would improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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 simple nature of the tool, the schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety, but the description omits any mention of the return format or behavior of the truncation parameter. It is minimally complete but could provide more context.

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% with descriptions for url, timeout, base_url, and max_chars, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as providing WHOIS/domain registration data via the Web Check /whois endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools like webcheck_dns or webcheck_ssl. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'retrieves'), which prevents a top score.

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 in the sibling set. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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