Get WHOIS profile usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds minimal behavioral context—it does not describe pagination, return format, or any side effects. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, a baseline 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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the action and result; the second reinforces the purpose. The main operation is front-loaded, making it easy for the agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple read operation with one well-documented parameter and annotations promoting safety, the description is largely complete. It does not specify the exact output structure, but given the simplicity and the lack of an output schema, it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose without missing critical information.

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 100% for the single parameter 'whoisId', which is described as 'WHOIS ID'. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('domain list') with a clear filter ('where provided WHOIS contact profile is used'). It distinguishes from related sibling tools like domains_getWHOISProfileListV1 (which lists profiles) and domains_getDomainListV1 (which lists all domains) by narrowing to domains using a specific profile.

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 clear usage context: 'Use this endpoint to view which domains use specific contact profiles.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar for explicit routing.

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