tool_check_ip_reputation

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses use of third-party API (IPQS), required environment variable, and explains that strictness parameter controls detection strictness. It does not mention rate limits or caching, but core behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Description is 6 sentences with no fluff. Starts with main purpose, then return values, then requirement, then parameter details. Information is front-loaded and well-organized.

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?

Given no output schema, description fully explains return values (fraud score, risk level, flags). Covers all necessary aspects: purpose, behavior, prerequisites, parameters. No missing critical information for an IP reputation check tool.

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%, but the description includes an 'Args' section explaining both parameters: ip_address (IPv4 or IPv6) and strictness (integer 0-3 with default 1). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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?

Description clearly states the tool checks IP for fraud risk, proxy, VPN, Tor, bot activity. The verb 'Check' and specific resource 'IP address' make purpose clear. Distinguishes from siblings which check other types (email, phone, URL) by name and context.

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?

Description implies usage context (when needing to check IP reputation) but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. It provides a prerequisite (IPQS_API_KEY) which is helpful for usage, but lacks explicit selection guidance.

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