whois

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

The description discloses a $0.001 USDC cost via x402, which is a behavioral trait, but it entirely omits the core behavior (e.g., querying WHOIS servers, rate limits, or required inputs). With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and falls far short.

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 brief, but brevity is not conciseness when it omits essential information. The single sentence provides only a category label and pricing, leaving out the tool's actual function.

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 no output schema and such a sparse input schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It gives no hint of what the tool returns, what inputs it expects, or how it compares to the many sibling network tools.

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 only defines a generic 'params' object with no sub-properties, and the description adds no meaning about what parameters are needed (e.g., domain name). Schema coverage is effectively empty of semantic detail, so the description must compensate, but it does not.

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 only categorizes the tool as a 'Security & Network tool' without stating a specific verb or resource. It does not say that it performs WHOIS lookups of domain registration data, and it fails to distinguish itself from related siblings like dns_whois_lookup or reverse_dns_lookup.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where a different network tool 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.