abuseipdb_blacklist

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It fails to mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or the nature of the blacklist (e.g., IP addresses, timestamps). The agent has no insight into side effects or prerequisites.

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 a single sentence, which is concise in length but underspecified. It lacks the necessary detail to be effective, so brevity does not serve utility.

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 three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine required inputs, expected output format, or operational constraints.

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% with three parameters (confidenceMinimum, limit, api_key). The description adds no explanation of these parameters, so the agent must infer from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 indicates a verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like abuseipdb_check_ip. However, it is vague about what exactly is retrieved (e.g., all entries, filtered?), leaving ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as abuseipdb_check_ip or abuseipdb_report_ip. The agent is left without context for appropriate use.

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