Company IP ranges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it requires a paid plan and returns a plan error on the free tier, and it takes a domain rather than a company name. This is useful operational context.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core action and input constraint are front-loaded, and the plan requirement is stated concisely. Every sentence earns 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?

For a read-only lookup tool with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the input constraint, the plan requirement, and the tool's purpose. The only minor gap is not describing what the output looks like, but since there's no output schema and the response_format parameter hints at markdown/json, this is acceptable.

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 the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds the key semantic constraint that company_domain must be the primary domain, not a company name, which is useful. However, it doesn't add much beyond that since the schema already covers the parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('IP addresses and ranges attributed to the organisation that owns a domain'), and clarifies the input is the company's primary domain, not a company name. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like securitytrails_ip_neighbors or securitytrails_search_ips.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: when you need IPs attributed to the organization owning a domain. It also provides an exclusion ('not a company name') and a prerequisite (paid plan). It doesn't explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the domain-based scope is clear enough.

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