find_whois_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the two-step behavior (checking the built-in database first, then querying IANA for unknown TLDs) and the returned information type. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it stops short of mentioning error handling or exact response structure.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what the tool returns, the lookup algorithm, and the result composition. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter, read-only discovery tool, the description is largely complete: it states the input, the lookup strategy, and the output focus. It is slightly thin on the exact shape of the return value since there is no output schema, but the high-level 'both WHOIS and RDAP server information' is sufficient for basic selection and invocation.

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 already fully describes the single parameter with an example ('example.com' or 'com'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description reuses the domain-or-TLD concept but adds no additional parameter semantics, matching the baseline of 3.

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: it discovers WHOIS and RDAP servers for a domain or TLD. It also clarifies the output scope by mentioning both server types, making the tool's purpose unambiguous even among siblings like whois_lookup and rdap_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 given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as rdap_bootstrap_info or whois_lookup. The description explains the internal lookup order but does not tell an agent when this tool is the right choice or when a sibling 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.