Get domain info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the data sources (WHOIS/RDAP) but fails to describe critical behaviors such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. For a read operation with external dependencies, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information (what data is retrieved and how). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (involving external WHOIS/RDAP lookups) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return values, error conditions, or operational constraints, leaving the agent under-informed about how to interpret results or handle failures.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'domain' clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't elaborate on domain format or validation). Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get') and the specific information retrieved ('domain registration, expiration, and daysUntilExpiry'), along with the method ('using WHOIS/RDAP'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_ssl_cert_info' by focusing on domain metadata rather than SSL certificates. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the sibling 'get_ssl_cert_info', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage advice, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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