whois_domain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. While it indicates a read operation, it omits behavioral details like rate limits, data privacy (e.g., redacted info), authentication needs, or response format. The mention of 'modern structured WHOIS' is helpful but insufficient.

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 very concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The Args section is redundant but includes a useful example. It is not overly verbose, though the structure could be slightly improved with a bullet or list.

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?

Despite having only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks important context such as what the response contains, any usage limitations, or how to handle errors. For a simple lookup tool, more completeness (e.g., a note on RDAP response structure) would be beneficial.

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 provides only a title and type for the 'domain' parameter with 0% description coverage. The description adds an example ('e.g. "github.com"') and specifies the format ('Domain name'), which adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Look up domain registration info via RDAP' using a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('domain registration info'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (geo_ip, resolve_dns, reverse_dns) which focus on IP or DNS data.

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 implies the tool is for obtaining domain registration info via RDAP, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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