AbuseIPDB reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful ABUSEIPDB_API_KEY prerequisite, but says nothing about rate limits, quota exhaustion, or what happens for private/invalid IPs — gaps that matter for an open-world API call.

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 short sentences with no waste; the resource and the domain restriction are front-loaded, followed by the key prerequisite.

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 small read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the resource, the input constraint and the auth requirement. The one real hole is the undocumented investigation_id parameter, which leaves an agent guessing on a two-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies ip_address (public IPs only, not domains) but leaves investigation_id completely unexplained — an agent has no way to know what that parameter does or when to supply it.

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?

Specific verb-implied resource: abuse reports plus a confidence score for a public IP, with an explicit exclusion ('not domains') that separates it from resolve_domain and subdomains. It does not distinguish itself from the closest reputation siblings like virustotal_check or threat_lists_check, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'public IP address (not domains)' constraint, which tells the agent when not to use it, and the API-key prerequisite is stated. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over virustotal_check or threat_lists_check for the same IP, which is the main ambiguity.

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