rdap_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it's a 'lookup' (read operation) but omits details like rate limits, required permissions, latency, failure modes, or whether multiple query formats are supported.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. The first sentence defines the tool's purpose, and the second gives the usage context. No redundant words.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, error handling, or query format constraints. For a tool that queries external databases, more context on reliability and timeouts is needed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by indicating that the 'query' parameter accepts an IP range or domain. However, it does not specify format details (e.g., CIDR notation, domain with scheme). The 'timeout' parameter is left entirely to its name.

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 clearly states it performs WHOIS-style RDAP lookups for IP ranges or domains to identify ownership and registration metadata. It distinguishes from siblings like dns_lookup and asn_lookup by focusing on registration data, though not explicitly differentiated.

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 provides a clear use case ('identify who owns an IP range or domain') but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Sibling tools like asn_lookup could overlap, but no comparison is given.

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