ip_block_reason

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It declares read-only behavior, specifies the returned fields (operator_reason, customer_message en/bg, no host paths), and discloses the honesty fallback when no reason is recorded. This exceeds typical lookup-tool disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the core answer, then gives the trigger, safety, return summary, and fallback. It uses bullet points to make return fields scannable and contains no filler.

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?

With one parameter, an existing output schema, and a read-only lookup, the description covers trigger, inputs, outputs, and no-result behavior. No critical call information is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so the description must add parameter meaning. The Args section defines ip as IPv4 or IPv6, which supplies format beyond the bare string in the schema. It could add an example or state exact-match requirements, but this is sufficient for a single parameter.

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 explicitly states the tool explains why an IP is blocked by combining CSF/LFD and BFM data. This is a specific resource plus intent and distinguishes it from sibling tools like csf_ip_reason and bfm_ip_reason by being the combined answer. Clear and immediately actionable.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'This is the tool to call when the operator (or the customer) asks "защо е блокиран"'. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear that this tool is the combined read-only explanation.

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