abuseipdb_check

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

No annotations exist, so description must cover behavior. It states inputs and outputs (confidence score, ISP, country, report count) but omits details like rate limits, idempotency, or any potential side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second lists outputs and requirement. No redundancy or fluff; every word adds value.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields. Parameter details are in schema. For a simple check tool, coverage is sufficient; missing only rate limits and error handling details.

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 descriptions already cover all three parameters (ip, max_age, verbose) with clear defaults. The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond summarizing output fields.

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 clearly states the tool checks an IP against AbuseIPDB for abuse reports and lists returned fields (confidence score, ISP, country, report count). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like abuseipdb_check_block or abuseipdb_reports.

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?

Description mentions the required API key but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings (e.g., abuseipdb_blacklist, abuseipdb_reports) or context like when to use max_age or verbose parameters.

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