bfm_ip_reason

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses what the tool returns (operator reason, customer_message in en+bg) and how the output is meant to be used (pasted to the client). It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only, but the return-focused wording and 'reason' semantics make the non-mutating behavior clear enough.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, returned payload, routing note, then the argument definition. Every sentence contributes and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter lookup with an existing output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, the input format, and the relevant alternative. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only says ip is a string, but the description fully compensates by defining the parameter as 'IPv4 or IPv6 to explain'. For a single-parameter tool this is complete semantic coverage.

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 opens with the tool's exact purpose—explaining why Brute Force Monitor listed an IP—and lists the returned fields (service, user, attempts, log line). It also differentiates from sibling ip_block_reason by naming the CSF/LFD alternative, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly instructs when to prefer ip_block_reason over this tool ('when you also need the CSF/LFD side'), which is the key routing decision among the BFM/CSF sibling tools. This gives clear context for selection rather than leaving it to inference.

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