Check Ip

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by identifying the data source (USOM) and the matching semantics (exact or inside a listed network), though it does not mention external API dependencies or rate limits for the optional enrichment path.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the tool's action and its two matching modes. There is no wasted text.

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 existing output schema and annotations, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the source and matching behavior. A minor gap is that it does not mention the optional external enrichment behavior, though the schema already documents that parameter and its API-key requirement.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the enrich flag and its API-key requirement. The description does not add param-level syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: check whether an IP address is listed by USOM. It also specifies the scope of matching (exactly or inside a listed network), which distinguishes it from related check_url and check_domain siblings without ambiguity.

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 purpose: use this when checking an IP address against USOM. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over check_domain, check_url, or search_threats, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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