stealer_ip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the auth requirement ('Requires HUDSONROCK_API_KEY') and the nature of the result set ('compromised machines'). It does not mention rate limits or pagination behavior, though the cursor parameter implies paging.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded in the first sentence. The return behavior and auth requirement each appear once and earn their 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?

For a read-only search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, the return content, and the auth prerequisite. It is nearly complete; only pagination behavior (via cursor) and any result limits are unaddressed.

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 100%, so both the 'ip' and 'cursor' parameters are already documented with format constraints and the cursor's origin. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format guidance, so the schema carries the full load and the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search Hudson Rock Cavalier stealer logs by IP address,' with a clear scope of what it returns ('compromised machines originating from that IP'). It does not explicitly name the sibling tools (stealer_domain, stealer_email) or distinguish this tool from them, but the IP-specific framing makes the distinction inferable.

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?

Usage is implied by the IP-based framing and the sibling family (domain/email variants), so an agent can infer this is the IP-keyed lookup. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus stealer_domain/stealer_email, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the API key.

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