abuseipdb_blacklist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not indicate that the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements (though api_key is a parameter), rate limits, or what happens when parameters are omitted.

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?

While very concise (4 words), it is under-specified. It lacks structure to convey essential information about parameters, usage, or behavior. Conciseness without substance is not effective.

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 3 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain what the blacklist contains, how to use the parameters, or what the response format is.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the three parameters (confidenceMinimum, limit, api_key). It does not explain how they affect the output or provide formatting details.

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 states 'Get the AbuseIPDB blacklist', which clearly identifies the action (get) and the resource (blacklist). It distinguishes from sibling tools like abuseipdb_check_ip and abuseipdb_report_ip, which operate on individual IPs.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like abuseipdb_check_ip. It does not mention any prerequisites, such as needing an API key, which is a parameter but not described.

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