WHOIS MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'raw AfriNIC database records with all attributes for detailed analysis' and specifies the regional scope ('AfriNIC RIR (African region)'). It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error behaviors, but provides substantial operational context beyond basic purpose.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences: purpose statement, usage guidelines, and behavioral clarification. Every sentence adds essential information - no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately follows with critical usage restrictions.

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 has an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere), 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description provides excellent completeness. It covers purpose, specific usage context, sibling differentiation, regional scope, output format, and parameter context - everything needed for effective tool selection.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the query parameter accepts 'domain name, IP address, ASN, or other identifier' and clarifies the flags parameter with 'Common AfriNIC flags' examples and usage guidance ('Use empty list [] or null for default query'). This provides practical context 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 states the tool performs 'raw WHOIS queries against the AfriNIC database to get complete object information in RPSL format.' It specifies the exact resource (AfriNIC database), verb (perform queries), and output format (RPSL format). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning 'afrinic_contact_card' for contact information.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use ONLY when you need full object details or administrative data from AfriNIC. DO NOT use for contact information - use afrinic_contact_card for abuse, NOC, admin, or tech contacts.' This clearly defines when to use this tool versus alternatives, including a specific sibling tool for different use cases.

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