threat_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds specific behavioral details: the ASN prefix limit (max 50), the breaking change in enrichment.vulns structure (list[str] to list[VulnInfo]), and the returned fields. 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?

Description is information-dense but well-structured: first sentence for purpose, second for usage, then notes and return fields. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly shorter without losing clarity.

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 tool's complexity (multiple data sources, version changes, rate limits, ASN prefix limit) and that it has an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it returns, limitations, and breaking changes. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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 100% with a clear description for the 'ip' parameter. Description does not add significant new meaning beyond what's in the schema; it merely reinforces that IP is public and private/reserved are rejected, which is already stated.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Query comprehensive threat profile for an IP' and lists specific data sources (Shodan, AbuseIPDB, ASN, geolocation, open ports). It distinguishes from sibling tool domain_report by saying 'for domain data use domain_report', making the scope clear.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use for IP investigation and SOC alert triage; for domain data use domain_report.' Also includes rate limits (30/hr free, 500/hr pro), version breaking change note, and a pointer to asn_lookup for full prefix data, guiding correct tool selection.

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