Lookup-Domain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the protocols (RDAP with WHOIS fallback) and the type of information returned, but does not cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with external services.

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 and efficiently structured in two sentences, with no wasted words. Each sentence adds value: the first explains the action and protocols, and the second specifies the returned information, making it highly concise and well-organized.

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 of a domain lookup tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and output types but lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter specifics, and return format, which are important for effective tool use by an AI agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly explains the 'domain' parameter by stating the tool looks up domain information, and hints at 'prefer_whois' through 'WHOIS fallback' and 'include_raw' via 'comprehensive details'. However, it does not fully detail each parameter's purpose or usage, leaving some ambiguity, especially for boolean flags.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('look up', 'provides') and resources ('domain information'), detailing what information is returned ('registration details, nameservers, contacts, and status information'). It also specifies the protocols used ('RDAP protocol with WHOIS fallback'), making it highly specific and informative.

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 for retrieving domain information but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. Since there are no sibling tools mentioned, the lack of differentiation is acceptable, but overall guidance remains limited to implied context.

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