VPN/Proxy/Threat Detection

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description reinforces. It adds significant behavioral details: paid tool with 2 credits cost, return structure (ip, security with many subfields), use of fields/excludes, force_refresh caching behavior, and that provider names appear when available. This goes well beyond the annotation.

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?

Every sentence adds value. The description is front-loaded with key information (read-only, paid, cost) and structured logically. No wasted words; it's concise yet comprehensive.

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 complexity (4 optional params, no output schema, many siblings), the description is thorough. It covers return fields, filtering, caching, usage context, and alternative tools. The only minor gap is not describing the exact output JSON structure in more detail, but the listed fields suffice.

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% so baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics: fields/excludes use comma-separated security.* dot paths; ip is always returned; force_refresh should only be set on explicit user request and can consume credits. This adds value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool performs a 'Read-only security lookup via GET /v3/security.' It specifies the resource (security) and the action (lookup/check). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lookup_ip, which can include security data alongside other information.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('only for security/threat data') and directs to lookup_ip with include parameter when additional data types are needed. This provides clear guidance and an alternative, helping the agent choose correctly.

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