whois_lookup

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Lookup' implies a non-mutating network query, but the description does not mention rate limits, failure behavior, network dependency, or whether WHOIS data may be redacted or aggregated.

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 one short sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally clean. However, it is so sparse that it reads more like under-specification than a deliberately complete, well-structured help entry.

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?

Given that the tool has only one required parameter and an output schema exists, the minimal description is close to viable. Still, it lacks input-format guidance and any usage context relative to the sibling tools, leaving an agent to guess at correct invocation details.

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 needed to compensate. It only repeats that the operation is 'for a domain' without adding format constraints like whether a bare domain is required, whether URLs/schemes are accepted, or whether IDN/punycode handling is supported.

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 uses a specific verb ('lookup') and resource ('domain') and names the WHOIS protocol, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like dns_lookup and tls_cert_check. It is clear, though minimal, and does not elaborate on what WHOIS data is actually returned.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus any of the sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or typical use cases such as registrant/registration-status investigations, so the agent must infer applicability from the sibling names alone.

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