Historical WHOIS / BGP for an Indicator

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

Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: describes return shapes per indicator type, performance note for ASN (~9s), and detailed failure handling with retryAfter. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description enriches with operational behavior.

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 paragraphs are well-organized: primary action, indicator types, then return shapes and failure handling. No redundant sentences. Could be slightly more streamlined, but overall efficient.

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?

With one parameter and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: input constraints, output variations per type, error states, and performance. Agent can correctly invoke and handle responses.

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 already has 100% coverage on the parameter description. The description adds constraints on allowed characters and examples, which are helpful but not essential. Since schema already does most of the work, the description's added value is moderate.

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?

Clearly states the action 'retrieve', the resource 'historical WHOIS or BGP data', and the scope 'for a single indicator'. It specifies the auto-detection of indicator types, making the purpose unambiguous. The tool's name and description together make it distinct from siblings.

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?

Provides guidance on input types and failure handling, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., query, explain_indicator). Usage is implied rather than compared, so it lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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