get_ip_intel

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

The description clearly signals a read operation with 'Get' and discloses the output data categories, which is the key behavioral context for a lookup tool. It does not explicitly mention auth or rate limits, but none are provided in annotations and the required account_id parameter implies authentication; no additional side effects need 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?

Two sentences carry all needed information with no redundant clauses. The purpose is front-loaded, the return fields are listed, and the usage scenario is appended efficiently.

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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description sufficiently names the output categories and the intended use case. It could mention edge cases or error handling, but those are not essential for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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 description coverage is 100%: the schema already explains 'ip' and 'account_id'. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the standard baseline 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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Get threat intelligence for an IP address.' The second sentence enumerates distinct return fields (geolocation, ASN, infrastructure type, security threat categories) that differentiate it from sibling domain/ASN intelligence tools like get_domain_intel and get_asn_intel.

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 final sentence explicitly states when to use it: 'useful for investigating suspicious IPs found in security events or access logs.' It gives clear context but does not name specific alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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