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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency, but it only restates the query's classification outcome. It does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, whether the query is read-only, or how an empty/default q value behaves.

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 short and front-loaded in a single sentence with no filler beyond the redundant 'GreyNoise:' prefix. It is appropriately compact for a simple lookup, though it sacrifices a little semantic detail for that brevity.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: an agent can infer the domain and intended query. However, the missing parameter semantics and lack of guidance around the q field leave enough ambiguity that the definition is only just viable.

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%, and the description only loosely references 'the IP' without explicitly binding it to the q parameter, accepted formats, or optionality. It adds the key semantic that an IP is involved, but leaves important invocation details unresolved.

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 a specific verb and resource: determine whether an IP is a known internet scanner and whether it is benign or malicious. It conveys a concrete purpose, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling IP tools like internetdb or ioc_reputation.

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 intended usage is implied by the purpose statement: use this tool when you need an IP and need a benign/malicious scanner classification. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison to alternatives, but the purpose makes the basic use case discoverable.

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