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 this tool returns 'raw ARIN database records with all attributes for detailed analysis' and specifies the geographic scope ('ARIN RIR - North America region'). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error behavior, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 zero wasted sentences. It starts with the core purpose, specifies geographic scope, provides clear usage guidelines with explicit alternatives, and ends with output characteristics. Every sentence adds essential information.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description provides complete contextual information. It covers purpose, scope, usage guidelines, and output format, making it sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'ARIN database' context but not providing additional semantic clarification about parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ARIN database to get complete object information in RPSL format.' It specifies the verb ('perform raw WHOIS queries'), resource ('ARIN database'), and output format ('RPSL format'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like contact cards or validation tools.

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 on when to use this tool ('Use ONLY when you need full object details or administrative data from ARIN') and when not to use it, listing three specific alternatives for different purposes (arin_contact_card, arin_validate_route_object, arin_expand_as_set). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools.

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