get_ip_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that relationship data is 'automatically fetched', which is a behavioral trait beyond a simple read, but it does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or whether any network calls are made. The description does not explicitly state it is read-only, though the verb 'get' implies it. Some transparency is present, but significant gaps remain.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every phrase adds value. It efficiently lists what the report includes and highlights the dual return of basic and relationship data without fluff.

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 complexity of an IP report tool with no output schema, the description provides a good inventory of what is returned (geolocation, reputation, relationships) and mentions both basic analysis and auto-fetched relationships. It lacks specifics about the return structure or any limitations, but for a single-parameter tool, this is sufficient to guide an agent. Slight deduction for not mentioning potential response size or filtering options.

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% for the only parameter 'ip', which already includes a clear description ('IP address to analyze'). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond restating it in context. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get a comprehensive IP address analysis report' with a specific verb and resource. It lists concrete contents (geolocation, reputation, key relationships) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the comprehensive nature and inclusion of both basic analysis and relationship data.

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 implies this is the go-to tool for full IP analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_ip_relationship. Since the sibling tool exists for relationships, mentioning that this tool includes relationships could be confusing without explicit usage boundaries. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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