IRC WHOIS lookup

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the literal 'look up information.' It does not mention what data is returned, whether authentication is needed, or any rate-limiting/availability caveats. The description is consistent with annotations but contributes nothing beyond them.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is concise, though extremely terse—it could afford a bit more detail without losing efficiency.

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?

With only 2 parameters, one required, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate for basic invocation. However, it does not explain the optional account parameter, note any usage caveats, or reference sibling tools. The agent is left with insufficient context to handle edge cases or choose between similar lookup 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%, so the description must clarify parameters. It only implicitly defines 'nick' by saying 'about a nick,' but the optional 'account' parameter is completely unexplained. This is a significant gap, especially for a WHOIS tool where 'account' could refer to a separate account-based lookup.

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 'Look up information about a nick on IRC' uses a specific verb+resource pattern, clearly identifying the tool as a read-only query for nick information. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_message, join, or part, which perform actions rather than lookups.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as irc_list_members or irc_recent_events. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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