tld_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It usefully states that the data comes from IANA and that the tool returns authoritative WHOIS server, RDAP server, and registry data. It does not mention whether the lookup is live or cached, error behavior, or response format, but for a simple read-only metadata lookup this is acceptable.

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 two compact sentences with no redundant wording. The core action and expected outputs are front-loaded, and the supported TLD classes are stated efficiently in a single follow-up sentence.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential context: data source, returned content, and TLD scope. It could be more complete by describing the return shape or possible failure modes, but it still gives an agent enough to understand what the tool does and when to call it.

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 already fully documents the tld parameter with examples and the rule to omit the leading dot, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds some context about supported TLD categories but does not significantly enrich the parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get information about a TLD... from IANA') and lists concrete outputs such as the authoritative WHOIS server, RDAP server, and IANA registry data. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like whois_lookup or find_whois_server by name.

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 implies this tool is for TLD-level metadata lookups rather than domain-level WHOIS/RDAP queries, and the 'Works for...' line indicates broad applicability. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over the sibling alternatives or when not to use it.

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