util_rdap_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or output format. The tool likely performs a network lookup but this is not stated.

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 concise sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the action and resources, but lacks structure for parameter guidance.

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 flexible input schema and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to construct the input, what the output contains, or any constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient information.

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 input schema has a single 'arguments' object with no described properties (0% coverage). The description hints at needing a domain but does not specify required keys or format. An agent cannot determine how to structure the input from the description alone.

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 fetches registrar, status, and registration dates for domain-related purposes. It specifies use cases (trust, compliance, domain ops) distinguishing it from siblings like util_dns_lookup. However, 'status' is vague and could be more specific (e.g., domain status codes).

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 implies usage for trust, compliance, and domain operations, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like util_dns_lookup or util_domain_trust_report. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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