BSI Single-IP Lookup

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint (safe read) and openWorldHint (data not authoritative). The description adds valuable behavioral context: IPv6 is rejected, results are in ascending precedence order (lower = higher priority), and a license is required. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three short sentences that convey purpose, ordering, constraint, and license requirement. Every sentence carries essential information with no padding.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It adequately covers input constraints, output ordering, and license requirement. It could optionally note error handling (e.g., invalid IP format), but the schema's pattern already handles validation hints. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a simple lookup 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description, format, and pattern for the 'ip' parameter. The description reiterates 'single IPv4 address' and mentions IPv6 rejection, but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'look up' and clearly defines the resource as 'Business Service Intelligence provider matches for a single IPv4 address'. It distinguishes from siblings like multi-ip-check (single vs. multiple IPs) and other bsi-*-stats tools (provider matches vs. aggregated stats).

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 states the tool requires a BSI license, providing a key precondition. It implicitly suggests usage for single IPv4 lookups, and by naming 'single IPv4 address' it hints not to use for multiple IPs (use multi-ip-check) or for category/company/trust stats. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use.

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