whois_lookup

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 only states that the tool performs a WHOIS lookup, but does not disclose what data is returned, whether the lookup is real-time or cached, any rate limits, or whether it requires network access. The description is a minimal restatement of the tool's name and does not add meaningful behavioral context.

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 extremely short, which is efficient, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It is a single sentence that restates the tool name, so while there is no waste, there is also no added value. A good description would be similarly short but include a bit more substance, such as what the lookup returns.

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?

For a tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. An agent needs to know what the output looks like, what the domain parameter format should be, and any limitations. The description provides none of this, leaving the agent to guess or rely on the tool name alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'domain' parameter. The description merely says 'for a domain' without specifying the expected format (e.g., with or without 'www', punycode, port, path), whether it accepts IDN, or any validation rules. This is a single-parameter tool, so the description should have provided at least basic format guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('WHOIS lookup for a domain'), which is clear enough to identify the tool's basic function. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like search_domain or list_tlds, which could also involve domain-related lookups. The name 'whois_lookup' and description are largely redundant, adding little beyond the tool name itself.

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. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer from the name alone that this is for WHOIS data, and there is no indication of when search_domain or other siblings would be more appropriate.

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