contrastapi

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 but provides none. It does not indicate data sources, rate limits, caching behavior, or what the response format contains.

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?

While brief, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The two words provide zero actionable information to an agent, failing the test that every sentence must earn its place.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fails to explain return values, data structure, or error conditions. For a single-parameter lookup tool with numerous siblings, this is entirely inadequate.

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 description coverage is 0% (empty string for the 'ip' parameter), yet the description adds no compensatory information. It does not specify IPv4 vs IPv6 support, CIDR notation acceptance, or input 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 'Ip Lookup' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It fails to specify what information is retrieved (geolocation, reputation, ownership) or how it differs from sibling tools like threat_intel, whois_lookup, or dns_records.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like threat_intel and whois_lookup also accept IP addresses, the description offers no criteria for selection.

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