tool_whois

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any output format details beyond the vague 'Result', error conditions, or how the domain parameter is validated. The description provides essentially no behavioral transparency.

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 short but under-specified. It simply repeats the name and parameter names without informative content. Conciseness is not valuable when it removes all substance; the few lines present don't earn their place because they add no information beyond the schema.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least explain what the result JSON contains (e.g., registration details, dates, nameservers). It only says 'result (json): Result', which is an empty placeholder. The description lacks completeness even for a basic lookup tool.

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 schema description coverage is 100% because both 'domain' and 'result' have descriptions. The description repeats 'domain (string): Domain' exactly as the schema, adding no extra meaning. The unusual presence of 'result' as an input property is not clarified, but the schema already documents both, so the baseline of 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 is just '[dev] Whois' – it restates the tool name without a verb or resource. It does not state that the tool performs a WHOIS lookup or retrieves domain registration information. A single noun is a tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains no other WHOIS-like tool, but the description offers no context about its appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or limitations. This is a lack of guidance rather than misleading guidance.

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