ip_reputation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Check') but does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive, nor does it disclose API rate limits, authentication details, or potential errors. The requirement for an API key is mentioned, but behavior beyond that is opaque.

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 two concise sentences (19 words) with the primary action front-loaded. It is efficient but arguably too sparse, lacking critical details. However, for a simple tool, this structure is acceptable and avoids redundancy.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and existence of an output schema, the description covers the basic need. However, it fails to explain what 'malicious' means (e.g., categories, confidence) and does not mention that the tool makes an external API call, which could inform caching or rate-limit handling. An output schema exists but its richness is unknown.

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 0% description coverage, meaning the parameter 'ip_address' has no defined format or constraints. The description adds no additional meaning (e.g., specifying IPv4/IPv6, CIDR notation, or accepted formats). This leaves the agent guessing about valid input values.

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 'Check' and the resource 'IP address is reported as malicious', and specifies the data source 'AbuseIPDB'. This distinguishes it from siblings like whois_lookup (whois) and dns_enumeration (DNS records), making the tool's unique purpose immediately clear.

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 mentions an environmental requirement (ABUSEIPDB_API_KEY) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like whois_lookup or port_scan. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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