get_ip_org

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the special behavior when ip=None ('returns current organization'), which is valuable context not in the schema. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, authentication requirements, or what 'current organization' means in practice, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place: the first establishes scope, the second explains parameter behavior, and the third defines the return value. No wasted words or 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 moderate complexity (single parameter with special null behavior), no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the parameter's semantics and return value format. However, it could better address what 'current organization' means and potential error cases, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 adds significant value by explaining the ip parameter's purpose and special null behavior. It clarifies that 'If None, returns current organization,' which provides essential semantics beyond the schema's type information. The description fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 specific action ('Get just the organization/ASN') and resource ('for an IP address'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_ip_info, get_ip_country, or get_ip_location that provide different types of IP information. The verb 'Get' combined with the specific scope 'organization/ASN' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('Get just the organization/ASN for an IP address') and implicitly distinguishes it from siblings that return different IP attributes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.

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