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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses the exact return shape and the failure behavior: '{resolved: false} when the IP can't be resolved or targeting is not configured.' It also clarifies the privacy boundary by explicitly excluding person-level PII, which is important behavioral context for a deanonymization tool.

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 compact and well-structured, with the primary action front-loaded and separate RETURNS / failure sections. Every sentence adds either purpose, scope, or behavioral detail, with no filler or redundant restatement.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the essential context: what it resolves, the company-level scope, the exact return shape, and when it returns false. Because there is no output schema, the explicit return contract is especially valuable. It could also mention prerequisites or related tools, but the given context is sufficient.

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 input schema already fully describes the single parameter 'ip' as an IPv4 or IPv6 address, so the description adds little new parameter-level detail. It does imply the IP should be a website visitor IP, but the schema carries the baseline burden and the description does not need to compensate for gaps.

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: 'Deanonymize a website visitor IP to the COMPANY that owns it.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing company-level resolution for visitor-to-account attribution, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does even among many siblings.

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 explicitly states the intended use case: 'Use for visitor-to-account attribution.' It also sets an exclusion boundary by noting 'Company-level only (no person-level PII),' which helps avoid misuse. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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