Keel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions using the system whois command, which implies it's a read-only external query, but doesn't specify whether it requires network access, what permissions are needed, potential rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external systems.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and implementation method. Every word serves a purpose with zero redundancy, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what WHOIS data is returned, how results are formatted, potential limitations of the system whois command, or error handling. Given the complexity of domain lookup tools and the lack of structured documentation, more context is needed for effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter. While it mentions 'domain' as the subject of the lookup, it provides no additional semantics about what constitutes a valid domain (e.g., format requirements, TLD restrictions, handling of subdomains) beyond what's implied by the parameter name itself.

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 the tool performs a 'WHOIS lookup for a domain' using the system whois command, providing a specific verb (lookup) and resource (domain). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like dns_lookup or reverse_dns, which also query domain information but through different protocols.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dns_lookup or check_ssl_cert. It mentions the technical implementation ('using the system whois command') but doesn't explain the specific use case for WHOIS data versus other domain-related tools available on the server.

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