check_block

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return payload (network range info plus per-IP breakdown), implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state side effects, rate limits, or error behavior. The term 'check' suggests safety, but more detail would be helpful.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and output, the second provides a cross-reference to a sibling tool. No wasted words.

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?

The description gives a sufficient high-level summary of return values, which is important because there is no output schema. It does not cover edge cases like maximum range or error handling, but those are partly addressed in the schema. For a relatively simple check tool, the description is reasonably complete.

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%, and both parameters are already well-described in the schema (e.g., network format and max_age_in_days). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

The description clearly states the tool checks a CIDR network block and returns network range info plus per-IP breakdown of reported addresses. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling check_ip tool by noting to use check_ip for a single IP address, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage guidance by stating 'Use check_ip instead for a single IP address,' which clarifies the primary distinction between the two tools. It implies the tool is for checking CIDR blocks, giving clear context for when to use it.

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