domain-whois

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions using RDAP and lists returned fields, but fails to disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. Essential transparency details are missing.

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?

Three sentences front-load the purpose, list returned data, explain the technology (RDAP), and provide use cases. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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 description explains what is returned (specific fields) and notes data availability ('where available'). No output schema exists, but the listed fields provide moderate completeness. Lacks details on error handling or TLD coverage, but sufficient for a simple lookup tool.

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 domain parameter description includes examples, required format, and a pre-processing instruction ('Strip 'www.' prefix'), adding significant practical value beyond the schema's type definition. Schema coverage is 100% with effective enrichment.

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 'Domain WHOIS/RDAP lookup' and lists specific data returned (registration date, expiration, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like domain-availability or dns-lookup by focusing on WHOIS/RDAP content.

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 suggests use cases ('due diligence, expiry monitoring, registrar/owner changes'), providing context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative domain tools.

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