whois_info

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full weight. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling (e.g., invalid domain). The example adds no behavioral context.

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 extremely concise, using only two short sentences with zero wasted words. It includes a clear verb and an illustrative example, making it optimally compact.

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 13 sibling tools and no output schema, the description is minimal. While adequate for a simple WHOIS lookup, it lacks details on the scope of data returned (e.g., registrar, dates) which could help agents differentiate from similar tools. It is functional but not rich enough for full contextual understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It merely provides an example ('whois_info("example.com")') which implies the parameter is a domain string, but does not add meaning beyond the schema's type definition. No constraints or formatting details are given.

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 'Get comprehensive WHOIS information for a domain' with an example, making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like domain_history or dns_records by focusing solely on WHOIS 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like domain_history or reverse_dns. There are no hints about prerequisites or contexts where this tool is best applied.

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