abuseipdb_check_ip

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

With no annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral detail. It does not disclose that the tool requires an API key (evident only from schema), whether it is read-only, rate limits, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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, so it is concise, but it omits essential details. It is not overly long, but it could be restructured to include critical information without adding much length.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain input requirements (e.g., API key), output format, or any constraints, making it insufficient for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 0% — the description says nothing about the three parameters (ip, maxAgeInDays, api_key). The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action (check) and the resource (IP address for abuse reports), distinguishing it from sibling tools like abuseipdb_blacklist and abuseipdb_report_ip. However, it could be more specific about the database or source used.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for bulk checks or reporting). The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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