search_whois

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and '[passive] Queries the registry/registrar WHOIS server, not the target' is a genuine behavioral disclosure (no direct contact with the target, so no target-side logging). That is valuable, but it stops short of disclosing rate limits, auth requirements, or error behavior for unavailable domains.

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 terse sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the qualifier. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description bears responsibility for return format and safety profile, yet it says nothing about output shape or whether the lookup is cached/rate-limited. The passive-mode note partially compensates, but a 2-parameter lookup tool with 50% schema coverage and no annotations warrants more.

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 only 50% (json_output is documented in the schema, domain is not), so the description should compensate but adds no parameter detail. The domain input is largely self-evident, but the description never states expected format (bare domain vs. URL vs. IP) or whether the json_output flag can apply to batch lookups.

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?

Specific verb ('retrieve') plus resource ('WHOIS registration data') and an explicit target ('for a domain'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_rdap, which is the closest alternative (RDAP being the WHOIS successor), so sibling differentiation is missing.

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 '[passive]' tag implies the operational context (stealth/OSINT where the target must not be contacted directly), which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_rdap or the other search_* siblings, so the agent must infer the choice.

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