Search IPs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by disclosing that each page costs one API query, which is a behavioral trait not captured in annotations. It does not contradict the 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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides examples, the sibling distinction, the required constraint, and the cost. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is efficient.

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 search tool with four parameters, one nested object, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage constraints, cost, and differentiation from a key sibling. The response_format parameter is documented in the schema, so its omission from the description is acceptable. It could be more explicit about constructing the `filter` object, but the schema provides that structure, so this is a minor gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by providing concrete examples for `query` (ptr_part = 'example') and `filter` (open_port_80 = true), and clarifies the mutually exclusive requirement of `query`/`filter`, which is not explicit in the schema. This helps the agent construct valid inputs.

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 verb (Search), the resource (IP dataset), and the method (DSL query or structured filter). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from the sibling securitytrails_search_domains by noting that the fields are distinct, so an agent can immediately tell them apart.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool (securitytrails_search_domains) and explains the distinction, guiding the agent on which to choose based on dataset. It also states the required constraint that exactly one of `query` or `filter` must be provided, and notes the cost per page, providing clear usage context.

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