Check a sending IP

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a refused Spamhaus query is reported as unknown rather than as a listing, which tells the agent how to interpret an ambiguous result. It stops short of describing the overall response shape.

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, zero filler, with the check list front-loaded and the interpretive caveat placed after it. Every clause conveys new 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?

With no output schema, the description still communicates the result categories an agent will receive: PTR value, whether it resolves back, per-blocklist listing status, and an 'unknown' state. What's missing is any sense of response structure or how multiple listings are aggregated.

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% and the single parameter already documents 'IPv4 or IPv6 address of the sending server.' The description adds no format, hostname-handling, or edge-case guidance beyond that, so the baseline 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 ('Check a mail server's IP') and then enumerates exactly what is inspected: PTR, forward confirmation, and named DNSBLs. The IP-centric scope naturally separates it from check_domain and check_email_headers without the agent needing to open a 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?

The framing implies the pre-send use case (validating a sending server's reputation), but the description never states when to reach for this versus check_domain or check_email_headers, nor any prerequisites such as needing the IP rather than a hostname. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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