rdap_bootstrap_info

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

The description clearly presents a read-only listing behavior and specifies what the agent should expect as output: TLDs plus their service URLs. It does not mention whether data is fetched live from IANA or cached, but for a simple informational tool this is a minor gap rather than a transparency failure.

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?

Two compact sentences with the key action and output front-loaded; the second sentence adds a practical use case. There is no filler or tautology.

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?

The tool is simple: one optional parameter, zero required parameters, and no output schema. The description covers what the tool shows and why it is useful, which is enough for an agent to select and invoke it, though it could optionally hint at output structure or data freshness.

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 fully documents the only parameter, 'filter', including its optional status and substring-matching behavior. The description itself adds no parameter details, which is acceptable because schema description coverage is 100%.

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 names the exact resource (IANA RDAP bootstrap data) and states the tool's output (list of TLDs supporting RDAP and their service URLs). This clearly differentiates it from sibling lookup tools like rdap_lookup or tld_info by emphasizing global coverage rather than per-domain or per-TLD 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?

It provides a clear use case: understanding RDAP coverage across TLDs. However, it never states when not to use it or points to alternatives such as rdap_lookup or tld_info, so an agent must infer the correct choice from the sibling tool names.

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