abuseipdb_report_ip

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

The description implies a write/mutation operation (reporting), but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements (api_key parameter is present but not described), or what happens after a successful report. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, but it lacks necessary detail. It is not well-structured, as it provides no breakdown of parameters or usage. It is too minimal to be fully 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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to use the tool, what the categories are, or what the response looks like. It fails to provide a complete picture.

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?

The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter, such as the meaning of 'categories' or how to use the 'api_key'. It fails to add value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Report' and the resource 'abusive IP address' to the service 'AbuseIPDB'. It is unambiguous in what the tool does, but it does not distinguish from sibling tools like abuseipdb_check_ip, which also deals with IP addresses.

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 checking an IP first. There is no mention of prerequisites, context for reporting, or when not to use it.

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