WHOIS Domain History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the chronological list format, the historical range (since 1986), and a warning about large responses consuming tokens.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a one-sentence warning. Every sentence adds value, clearly stating the purpose and an important caveat. No wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, good annotations, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, what it returns, and a warning about token consumption. It lacks details about pagination or handling large results, but it is adequate for the complexity.

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 fully describes the single parameter 'domain_name' with a clear explanation of sub-domain resolution. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states that the tool retrieves historical WHOIS snapshots for a domain, specifying that data goes back to 1986 and returns a chronological list with specific fields. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'whois_domain_lookup' which presumably returns current 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?

The description indicates when to use the tool (for historical WHOIS data) and warns about potential high token consumption for long-established domains. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like using 'whois_domain_lookup' for current data, though the sibling context implies this.

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