IP registry lookup

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds little behavioral detail beyond stating the operation type. No additional side effects, rate limits, or failure modes are disclosed.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the primary action and lists the key output fields. It contains no filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and efficiently structured.

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 lookup tool, the description provides sufficient context: it names the protocol (RDAP), the input type (IP address), and the output fields. The sibling tools are clearly different network operations, so no additional context is needed for selection.

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 sole parameter 'ip' is described as 'Public IPv4 or IPv6 address', which fully covers the schema (100% coverage). However, the description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so it remains at the baseline for full coverage.

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 'look up' and the resource 'IP address in the regional registry via RDAP', and enumerates the returned information (allocation handle, network range, country, responsible organisations). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like dns_lookup, tls_certificate, and http_probe.

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 use when IP registry information is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of scenarios where other sibling tools would be more appropriate.

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