check_ip_threat

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries the burden. It indicates a read-only lookup against URLhaus, but doesn't disclose response format, potential external API dependency, or edge cases like unknown IPs. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and use cases. No filler. Very efficient.

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 two-parameter lookup tool, the description covers purpose and use cases. Lacks return value details, but given no output schema, this is acceptable. Sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 covers both parameters (ip and urlhaus_url) with descriptions, so baseline 3. Description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's already in the schema.

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?

Clearly states it checks an IP address against URLhaus blacklist, a specific verb+resource. Differentiates from siblings like extract_iocs and advanced_threat_detection by focusing on IP reputation lookup.

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?

Explicitly lists three use cases ('User asks if an IP is malicious', 'Checking IOCs', 'Threat intelligence lookup'). However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternative tools, so not a perfect 5.

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