ip_lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint as safe, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds significant behavioral context: null-explicit response, conditional next_calls, cloud_provider two-tier detection logic, tor_exit disambiguation via sources_unavailable, version change details for vulns format, and error handling. 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 front-loaded with the main purpose and is packed with valuable details. However, it is somewhat verbose, including version-specific version details (Phase 2 v1.16.0 BREAKING) that could be documented elsewhere. The structure is a single dense paragraph, which could be more clearly organized. Still, 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?

Given the complexity of the tool (multiple data sources, version changes, conditional next_calls, null-explicit response), the description thoroughly covers all behavioral details. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description is complete for correct agent invocation.

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 only parameter 'ip' has 100% schema description coverage (including examples). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 queries comprehensive IP intelligence and lists many data points. It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'threat_report' by directing use for orchestrated IP+reputation, ensuring the agent knows which tool to use for different scenarios.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use for IP investigation') and explicitly names an alternative ('for orchestrated IP+reputation use threat_report'). It also includes rate limits and tier differences, which help the agent decide when to invoke.

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