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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the specific data returned (open services, software, location, AS), which is beyond annotations. It does not discuss rate limits or error behavior, but for a single-host lookup these are minor omissions given the annotation coverage.

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 two sentences plus a code example, with the core purpose front-loaded and no redundant fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and the example clarifies invocation format without clutter.

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 tool with 2 parameters, high schema coverage, and safety annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, parameter usage, and the nature of the return data (services, ports, software, location, AS). No output schema exists, but the description lists what is returned. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 _apiKey are fully documented in the schema. The description only provides an example and restates the purpose, adding minimal semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema handles parameter documentation.

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 verb (returns) and the resource (internet-scan detail for a single host), and enumerates the specific data fields (services, ports, software, location, AS). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like censys_host_search and censys_cert_search without opening schemas.

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 a single IP lookup but does not explicitly contrast with sibling alternatives such as censys_host_search (for searching hosts) or censys_cert_search. The context that this is for a specific IP is present but no when-not-to-use guidance is given, so it's implied rather than explicit.

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