Get WHOIS profile list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context—it mentions the purpose but does not disclose filtering behavior, pagination, or output format. Since annotations handle the read-only nature, the description's added value is limited, but it does not contradict annotations. A score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences that state the purpose and a usage note. It is front-loaded with the key action ('Retrieve WHOIS contact profiles') and contains no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, and it is well-structured for quick reading.

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 simplicity (one optional filter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the purpose and the domain context. It does not mention what happens when 'tld' is omitted (likely returns all profiles), but that is inferable from the schema. The absence of an output schema means the return format is not described, but for a list operation, this is acceptable. Overall, it covers the essential information for an agent to call it correctly.

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 provides 100% coverage of the single 'tld' parameter with a clear description ('Filter by TLD (without leading dot)'). The tool description does not add any extra meaning to the parameter—it only restates the overall purpose. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no additional value beyond the 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 states 'Retrieve WHOIS contact profiles' which is a clear verb+resource. It adds context with 'Use this endpoint to view available contact profiles for domain registration', clarifying the intent. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'domains_getWHOISProfileV1' which fetches a single profile, leaving some ambiguity about the list vs. single distinction beyond the tool name.

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 gives a general usage context ('for domain registration') but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives. There is no mention of the sibling 'domains_getWHOISProfileV1' for retrieving a single profile, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied at best and does not help an agent decide between closely related domain tools.

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