private_whois_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. Although 'Get' suggests a read-only action, the description does not explicitly confirm no side effects, mention response format, or address potential errors (e.g., domain not found). This lack of behavioral context leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect beyond the basic action.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly adequate but lacks essential return-value information. Without an output schema, the agent cannot know whether 'status' is a boolean, string, or structured object. Additionally, edge cases like domain not found are unaddressed, so the description is not fully complete.

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 'domain' parameter is already described clearly in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to since the schema fully documents the only parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and the target resource ('current private WHOIS protection status') for a specific domain. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like private_whois_enable and private_whois_disable, which modify the status, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies a read/status-checking operation, which is intuitive given the verb 'Get'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus private_whois_enable/disable or other status tools, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The intended use is clear but not explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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