arvan_net_whois

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

Annotations are all false (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), offering minimal behavioral clues. The description adds only that the tool requires the `whois` binary, which is a dependency but not a behavioral trait. It does not disclose output format, error handling, or side effects.

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 sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose and a key requirement. Every word serves a purpose.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description is minimal. It omits what the tool returns (WHOIS data format), error cases (invalid query), and any rate limits or permissions. An agent lacks enough context to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 schema has no description for the `query` parameter (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by indicating the query is a domain or IP, but it does not specify format (e.g., 'example.com' or '8.8.8.8') or constraints. This adds some value 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 'WHOIS lookup for a domain or IP', specifying the verb and resource. It is unambiguous and matches the tool's name. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like `arvan_net_dns_lookup`, so the purpose is clear but not uniquely positioned.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., DNS lookup, HTTP check). The mention of the `whois` binary requirement is a prerequisite but does not offer context on scenarios or exclusions.

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