netintel_whois_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the data source ('authoritative registry' via RDAP), the read-only nature implied by 'lookup', the concrete fields returned, and the presence of a derived actionability score. It does not cover failure modes (unregistered domains, redacted GDPR registrant data), rate limits, or auth requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the operation and data source, then packs the return fields densely. Every clause earns its place via the field enumeration; only the trailing 'actionability score' framing drifts slightly toward marketing.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description does most of the work and covers the return payload well. However, it leaves parameter format, error/edge behavior, and routing versus closely-named domain siblings unaddressed — enough gaps that an agent could mis-select among the many domain tools.

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 0% for the single 'domain' parameter, so the description must compensate and it does not — it never states whether to pass an apex domain, subdomain, punycode form, or URL. For a one-parameter tool the intent is largely self-evident from the name, but the format ambiguity across 30+ sibling domain tools is real.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Domain registration lookup, WHOIS via RDAP') and enumerates the exact fields returned (registrar, registration/expiry dates, nameservers, status flags) plus a derived actionability score. The one gap is sibling differentiation: with netintel_domain_vet, netintel_domain_availability, netintel_domain_age, and netintel_domain_report in the toolset, the description never says how this differs from those overlapping domain tools.

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 when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. The phrase 'domain trustworthiness, ownership, or availability risk' gestures at use cases but does not tell the agent when to pick this over netintel_domain_vet, netintel_domain_due_diligence, or netintel_domain_availability. In a toolset this crowded with domain tools, that omission is significant.

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