enrich_ips

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses critical behavior: using local offline dataset by default, optional RDAP fallback, handling of invalid entries (return found=false), transient rows due to rate limits, and caching. No contradiction with annotations.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured: core function first, then usage, then behavioral details, then special cases. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Could be slightly trimmed, but every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return format (one row per IP, found flag, summary, transient, note). It covers error handling, rate limiting, and configuration dependencies. Complete for a single-parameter tool.

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?

The input schema fully describes the 'ips' parameter with a note about invalid entries. The description adds contextual value: both IPv4 and IPv6 are supported, invalid entries do not fail the batch, and the default local vs RDAP behavior. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3; the extra context justifies a 4.

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 it resolves IPs to geo, ASN/org, and hosting/proxy flag. It provides specific use-case scenarios ('where are these visitors from?', 'which of these IPs are bots?') and distinguishes from sibling tools like query_logs by explaining the enrichment purpose.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (e.g., answering geolocation or bot detection questions) and when not to pre-filter v6. It mentions the local dataset vs RDAP fallback, how to handle transient rows (retry), and the 1000-item limit. Provides meaningful context for decision-making.

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