batch_lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It mentions that IPs 'can include field paths like "8.8.8.8/city"' which hints at extended functionality, but doesn't describe rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what specific information is returned. For a batch operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place: the first establishes core functionality, the second explains parameter semantics with a helpful example, and the third describes the return format. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (batch operation with field path syntax), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but the description lacks context about performance, limitations, or how it relates to the many sibling tools. It's complete enough for basic use but leaves gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description compensates well by explaining the 'ips' parameter accepts 'List of IP addresses to lookup' and provides an example of field path syntax. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints or validation rules.

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's purpose as 'Batch lookup multiple IP addresses' with a specific verb ('lookup') and resource ('IP addresses'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing batch capability, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The description avoids tautology by providing meaningful context beyond just the name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling IP lookup tools (e.g., get_ip_info, get_ip_city, map_ips). It mentions batch capability but doesn't specify thresholds, performance considerations, or alternative tools for single IP lookups. There's no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives.

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