refresh_whois_servers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action (fetching from IANA, updating the dictionary) and suggests periodic use, but doesn't mention potential side effects, permissions needed, rate limits, or what 'updates' entail (e.g., overwriting, merging). It provides basic context but misses key operational details.

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 three concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the effect, and the third provides usage guidance. Each sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, permissions) and output format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, more disclosure would be beneficial.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the input structure. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details, as none are needed. It focuses on the tool's purpose and usage instead.

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 specific action ('refresh'), the target resource ('WHOIS server dictionary'), and the method ('fetching the latest TLD list from IANA'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by focusing on dictionary maintenance rather than listing or performing lookups.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('periodically to ensure the server list is up-to-date'), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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