osint_ip_lookup

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that lookups are limited to public IPs, which is meaningful scope information. It says nothing about upstream provider dependency, rate limits, failure behavior for private or reserved ranges, or whether results are cached — gaps that matter for an external-intelligence call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the returned data categories listed immediately. The 'OSINT Tool:' prefix is mild filler but the rest earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool is a simple one-parameter read. What remains missing is the accepted input format (IP only vs. host) and any note on scope limits or sibling alternatives, which is enough of a gap to keep this at minimum-viable-plus.

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 single parameter 'ip_or_host' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description mentions only 'public IP', leaving unclear whether a hostname is accepted and resolved, or whether domains are rejected. This is a real ambiguity the description should have resolved.

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 names a specific verb (lookup) and enumerates the resource fields returned: geolocation, ASN, ISP, and organization. That is far more informative than a restated name. It does not, however, distinguish this from overlapping siblings such as osint_geoint_lookup or osint_domain_recon.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus osint_geoint_lookup, osint_domain_recon, or osint_deep_public_recon, all of which sit adjacent in scope. The only implied guidance is that the target must be a public IP, and even that is not framed as a usage condition.

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