whois_raw

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: the query is sent raw to a specified server and the response is returned unprocessed, meaning no parsing or transformation should be expected. It could add error or response-format detail, but the core behavior is explicit.

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 sentences carry all necessary information: the action, the unprocessed nature of the output, and the relevant use cases. Every sentence earns its place and the main action is front-loaded.

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 simple raw network query tool, the description plus a fully documented schema is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. Required parameters are in the schema, defaults for port and timeout are provided, and the return value is defined as the unprocessed response.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with defaults and examples. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the rwhois use case, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise action ('Send a raw WHOIS query'), a specific target ('a specific server'), and the output ('return the unprocessed response'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling whois_lookup, which implies a standard, processed 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?

The description gives explicit use contexts: 'debugging, querying IP WHOIS (rwhois), or non-standard WHOIS servers.' This tells an agent when the raw variant is appropriate. It does not explicitly name the standard alternative, but the context is clear enough.

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