whois_lookup

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 (lookup via WHOIS protocol), scope (1,260+ TLDs), and data returned (registration details). However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or network behavior, which are important for a network-based tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by supporting details. Every sentence adds value: protocol specifics, data returned, and TLD support. It's efficiently structured with no redundant or vague language.

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 complexity (network protocol tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the what and how but lacks details on output format, error cases, or performance considerations. For a tool interacting with external servers, more behavioral context 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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'domain' parameter implicitly by stating 'Look up domain information' and 'Queries... for domain registration details'. For 'include_raw', it's not mentioned, but with only 2 parameters and one clearly explained, this is adequate. The description adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Look up domain information using WHOIS protocol'), identifies the resource ('domain'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on domain lookup rather than listing TLDs or refreshing servers. It provides concrete details about the protocol (port 43) and scope (1,260+ TLDs).

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 usage context by mentioning 'domain registration details' and '1,260+ TLDs', suggesting it's for domain information retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_supported_tlds or refresh_whois_servers, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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