raw_whois_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add useful context: direct socket port 43, authoritative registries, and no API limits. But it does not disclose output format, potential failure modes (e.g., blocked port 43 or per-registry restrictions), or whether results are raw text versus structured data.

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?

One single sentence with no redundant phrasing, no filler, and the key behavioral facts are front-loaded. Every word contributes to defining the tool's behavior and value.

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 with full schema documentation. The description adequately explains the query mechanism and data source. Minor gap is the lack of detail about return data shape, but for a raw WHOIS lookup with no output schema the description is still sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100% and the single required parameter already has a clear type, description, and example. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Queries'), a concrete resource ('authoritative registries'), a precise mechanism ('via socket port 43'), and a clear outcome ('live WHOIS records'). It also says 'without API limits', which differentiates it from API-based options and makes the purpose distinct from the sibling tool analyze_registration_lifecycle.

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 conveys clear context for when the tool is intended: obtaining live WHOIS records directly from authoritative registries with no API limits. However, it does not explicitly mention the sibling tool as an alternative, nor does it state exclusions such as when an RDAP-based or analysis-oriented tool should be preferred instead.

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