search_abuseipdb

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth requirement (ABUSEIPDB_API_KEY env var), the external call and its footprint ('[passive] One request to api.abuseipdb.com'), and a behavioral quirk (warning emitted when score exceeds 50%). It stops short of error/rate-limit behavior or what happens on an unknown IP.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and source, then return values, then auth/footprint caveats. Nothing is padding; the bracketed tags are terse and information-dense.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly enumerates the returned fields and the warning threshold, and it covers the credential requirement and request footprint. Remaining gaps are minor (error cases, rate limits, IP format) for a single-parameter read-only lookup.

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 only 50% (json_output documented, ip bare), so the description must compensate and largely does not. It never states the expected IP format (IPv4/IPv6/CIDR) or what json_output changes beyond the schema's own one-liner. 'Check an IP address' only weakly maps to the ip 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check an IP address') plus the exact data source ('AbuseIPDB v2 API for abuse reputation'), which is what separates it from the many other IP-oriented siblings (search_ip, search_virustotal, search_shodan, search_censys). An agent can tell which enrichment source it is getting without opening the 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 implied by the described return values (abuse score, reports, country, ISP), so an agent can infer this is the abuse-reputation lookup. However, it never states when to prefer this over search_virustotal or search_ip, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the env var. The '[passive]' tag hints at OPSEC suitability but does not define a selection rule.

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