net_whois

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the native implementation: it connects to whois.iana.org and recursively queries authoritative servers without relying on third-party APIs. It does not cover potential timeouts or error behavior, but the network-related behavior is adequately transparent.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds useful implementation detail in parentheses, with no wasted 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?

For a simple one-parameter network query tool, the description covers the essential purpose and implementation method. It lacks an explicit description of the return format, but this is not critical for tool invocation given the clear WHOIS semantics.

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 single parameter 'domain' is already fully described in the schema with an example, and the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the domain is the target of the query. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 this tool performs WHOIS domain information queries, with a specific verb (查询) and resource (域名). It also distinguishes itself by mentioning the native implementation connecting to whois.iana.org, which sets it apart from sibling network tools.

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 clear context for a WHOIS lookup scenario, making it obvious when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using net_icp for Chinese ICP filings, so it misses explicit when-not guidance.

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