greynoise_ip

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool is free and requires no API key, and lists return fields. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or error states. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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, front-loaded with the action, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value: the first states purpose and outputs, the second highlights key differentiators (free, no key).

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 adequately summarizes return values (classification, scanner status, last seen). It provides key usage context (free, no key) but could mention error handling or additional fields for completeness.

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% with a clear description of the 'ip' parameter. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Clearly states 'Look up an IP address on GreyNoise Community API' with specific verb and resource. Lists return fields (classification, scanner status, last seen) and notes it's free with no API key, helping distinguish from sibling tools that may require keys or have different sources. However, does not explicitly contrast with other IP lookup tools.

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?

Provides useful context: 'Free, no API key required' suggests it's for quick, unauthenticated lookups. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., abuseipdb_check) and does not mention limitations or prerequisites.

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