IP WHOIS

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds value by disclosing the actual data categories returned, including abuse contactsable, which helps the agent anticipate the response even without an output schema. No contradictions with annotations were found.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and object, then uses an em-dash to enumerate useful output fields. There is no filler, repetition of schema-only details, or unnecessary context.

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 read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential details: what it fetches, for what input, and what data it returns. It is slightly incomplete in not mentioning any relationship to historical WHOIS or current-registration variants, but those are sibling-tool concerns already implied by the surrounding 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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented including an example, pattern, enum, and default. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level detail beyond 'one IPv4', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and identifies the exact resource ('WHOIS and network-block registration data') plus the scope ('one IPv4 address'). It also lists concrete data contents (owning organisation, allocation, abuse contacts), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from domain-focused WHOIS siblings.

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 phrase 'for one IPv4 address' implies the tool is meant for single-IP WHOIS lookups, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use it instead of related tools like securitytrails_whois_current or securitytrails_whois_history. Usage context is clear by inference, but alternatives and exclusions are not stated.

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