Look Up IP Context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by detailing the specific data categories returned (classification, tags, raw scan data, business service intelligence, geo, network metadata), which are not covered by annotations. 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and lists all relevant data types. No redundant information; every part 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?

Given the simple single-parameter input, read-only annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description provides a comprehensive overview of the return data. Minor omission: could mention potential rate limits or authentication requirements, but these are likely covered by the API context.

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 coverage is 100% with a single required 'ip' parameter and a clear description in schema. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Get' and the resource 'detailed GreyNoise context for a single IP', and explicitly lists the types of data included (classification, tags, intelligence, geo, network). This sets it apart from sibling tools like 'multi-ip-check' which handles multiple IPs, and session/alert tools which serve different purposes.

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 usage for a single IP lookup and hints at the rich data returned, but does not explicitly instruct when to use this tool over siblings like 'multi-ip-check' or 'get-session'. There are no 'when-not' or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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