get_whois

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lists returned fields (domain age, dates, nameservers, registrar/registrant, contacts). It does not mention potential restrictions or errors, but for a simple lookup, the description is adequately transparent.

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 concise: a one-sentence purpose, a one-line usage guideline, and structured Args/Returns sections. No redundant information, and front-loaded with key details.

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 that an output schema exists, the return description is quite detailed covering domain age, dates, nameservers, registrar/registrant, and contacts. It doesn't mention error cases or rate limits, but for a straightforward Whois lookup, it is complete enough.

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 has 0% description coverage—only a title and type. The description adds an example ('example.com') and clarifies the parameter is the domain name to look up. This adds value beyond the schema, though it could be more specific about format or TLD handling.

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 it looks up WHOIS data for a domain, providing specific use cases (domain registration, registrar, expiry, ownership, nameservers). It distinguishes itself from any sibling tools implicitly by being the only tool on the server.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'when the user asks about domain registration details...'. It does not provide exclusions or alternatives, but since there are no sibling tools, this is sufficient.

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