search_by_ip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that results are 'recent scans' and that only pages served from the IP are included, which is useful. But it does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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 long, with the first sentence front-loading the core function and the second sentence adding practical value. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the description covers its primary function and use case. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required. However, parameters like 'days' and 'size' are left entirely to the schema, and the lack of annotations means the description could provide more operational context, such as default behavior or limitations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only alludes to the 'ip' parameter via the tool name and description, and gives no explicit meaning for 'days' (lookback period) or 'size' (result limit). The word 'recent' hints at days, but the guidance is too vague to be helpful.

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: 'Find recent scans of pages served from an IP address.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the IP focus distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_by_domain or search_by_asn. The additional use case about spotting co-hosted content reinforces its unique purpose.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Good for spotting what else is hosted alongside something suspicious.' This implies when to use the tool (when investigating a suspicious IP). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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