Look up an IP address

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds one genuinely valuable interpretive caveat — signals describe the network, not the person — which prevents misattribution of VPN/Tor flags to an individual. It does not mention rate limits, auth/provider requirements, or behavior on invalid input, so it adds context but is not rich.

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 purpose and return fields, followed by a single caveat that earns its place. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so by enumerating the field groups. Combined with full schema coverage and complete annotations, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only error/failure behavior is unstated.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the IPv4/IPv6 format and an example. The description restates the same accepted formats and adds no further syntax, normalization, or validation guidance. 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'IP intelligence for one IPv4 or IPv6 address' — and enumerates the exact fields returned (country, city, ISP, ASN, connection type, risk signals). This is clearly distinguishable from the session- and site-oriented siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implicit: the agent can infer this is the tool for resolving attributes of a known address. However, the description never states when to reach for it versus explain_event or recent_risky_events, nor does it give any prerequisite or exclusion. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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