domain_whois

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by naming the protocol (RDAP) and listing the returned fields, which implies a read-only live lookup. It does not cover rate limits, auth, or edge cases, but for a simple read operation this is reasonably 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?

A single, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates the output fields. No filler or redundant wording.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, read-only lookup) and the description covers purpose, protocol, and expected data fields. There is no output schema, but the field list partially addresses return values. Missing details like error behavior are minor for this tool type.

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% and the description merely repeats the parameter name ('domain') without adding format, constraints, or examples (e.g., FQDN, no protocol, punycode). For a low-coverage schema, the description should compensate for the missing parameter semantics, but it does not.

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 states the resource ('domain registration info') and specifies the data fields returned (registrar, dates, nameservers, status, abuse contact). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ip_whois by explicitly identifying domain and RDAP. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'query') and does not name sibling tools for differentiation.

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 when to use the tool: whenever domain registration details are needed. But it provides no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or conditions ('use ip_whois for IP addresses'). The context is clear but leaves the 'when not' to inference.

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