get_ip_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return format ('Formatted analysis report with detection summary and relationships') but fails to disclose other behavioral traits such as read-only safety, rate limits, or any external calls. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise and well-structured with a single-sentence overview, followed by Args and Returns sections. Every part adds value, avoiding fluff while providing the necessary parameter and return information.

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 tool with one parameter and a string return, the description is mostly complete: it explains the parameter, the return type, and the report's content. However, it omits behavioral context (e.g., no mention of prerequisites or side effects) and does not address alternatives, despite the presence of sibling tools. The lower complexity prevents a lower score, but the gaps keep it from a 5.

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?

The schema provides no description for the 'ip' parameter (coverage 0%), but the description compensates with 'ip: IP address to analyze', adding clear meaning. It explains the purpose of the parameter without needing examples or format details, which is adequate for a single string parameter.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'IP address analysis report'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on IPs and the 'report' aspect rather than 'relationship', making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage: when you need a report for an IP, use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like get_ip_relationship, which also covers relationships. No exclusions or comparison with sibling tools are provided.

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