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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool does: automatically resolves organization details, extracts contact information (abuse mailboxes, technical contacts, etc.), and returns structured contact data. It mentions the tool's purpose for incident response and compliance reporting, adding useful context beyond basic functionality.

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 somewhat verbose with repetitive elements (e.g., multiple contact type listings, keyword repetition). While front-loaded with the main purpose, it could be more streamlined. Sentences like 'Perfect for incident response...' add value but contribute to length. It's adequately structured but not maximally concise.

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, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral aspects, and regional specificity. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them. It could improve by more explicitly differentiating from sibling tools beyond regional scope.

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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the tool works with 'IP addresses, ASNs, or organizations' and mentions 'automatically resolves organization details,' but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.

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's purpose: retrieving contact information for IP addresses, ASNs, or organizations from the LACNIC database. It specifies the exact resource (LACNIC database) and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly mentioning it's for the Latin America and Caribbean region, unlike other RIR-specific tools in the sibling list.

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 usage guidance: it's the 'PREFERRED TOOL' for contact retrieval from LACNIC, lists specific use cases (abuse reports, security incidents, network issues, administrative matters), and includes keywords to trigger its use. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the LACNIC region, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives for other regions.

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