abuseipdb_reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes the tool as non-destructive ('Get... returns...') but omits details like rate limits, pagination, or error handling. The description is generic and does not add behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 succinct with two sentences: the first explains the core function, and the second mentions the API key requirement. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, though structurally it could be improved by positioning the API key info earlier.

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 the tool's 3 parameters, absence of output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It states what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks details on the return format, error conditions, or usage scenarios. More context would be beneficial for an AI agent.

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 all parameters. The description adds general context ('individual abuse reports', 'detailed report comments and categories') but does not enhance understanding of specific parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Get individual abuse reports for an IP from AbuseIPDB.' It specifies the source (AbuseIPDB) and the output ('detailed report comments and categories'). While it distinguishes from siblings implicitly (other abuseipdb tools likely have different purposes), it does not explicitly differentiate.

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 only mentions a prerequisite ('Requires ABUSEIPDB_API_KEY') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like abuseipdb_check or abuseipdb_blacklist. There is no mention of best practices, exclusions, or context.

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