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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and provides meaningful detail: it discloses the detection categories (commercial VPNs with provider naming, proxies, Tor exit nodes, datacenter hosting) and the output contents (geolocation, ASN, 0-100 score, verdict). It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but for a read-only scoring tool this is a substantial disclosure.

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, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Every clause delivers relevant information about detection scope and return values.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description lists all key return fields and detection categories, which is sufficient for an agent to understand what it will receive. Combined with a clear and complete input schema, the tool is adequately specified.

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%: both 'ip' and 'strictness' are already described with examples and threshold semantics. The description adds no extra parameter-specific detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Risk-score an IPv4 or IPv6 address.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by naming the exact entity type (IP address) and the output (risk score, verdict), making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Usage is implied through the tool's entity-focused description and the naming pattern of sibling tools (score_device, score_user, score_domain). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide any 'when not to use' guidance.

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