lookup_port

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the output fields (service, protocols, category, software, exposure verdict with reasoning, related ports), the supported input modes, and the limitation that it covers only the 100 ports documented by whatismynetip.com. This gives an agent a clear model of what to expect.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core question first, then summarizes return content, then gives usage examples and the optional detail flag. Every sentence contributes information, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the response components and the verdict categories. It also explains both numeric and textual query modes. It could add a note about handling unknown ports or no matches, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning by providing concrete query examples ('redis', 'wireguard') and clarifying that detail:true appends the long explainer and FAQ. This goes slightly beyond the schema's descriptions without being redundant.

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 opens with a specific purpose: 'What runs on a port and whether it is safe to expose.' It clearly identifies the resource (ports) and the kind of answer provided (service, protocols, exposure verdict), and it is distinct from all sibling tools like reverse_dns, dns_lookup, and mac_lookup.

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 gives concrete input guidance: provide a port number or search by service with examples like 'redis' or 'wireguard', and mentions the detail flag for extended output. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but the sibling tools serve clearly different purposes, so this is a minor gap.

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