ip_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only registry query; nothing is sent to the target,' which is a key non-interference trait. It also discloses timeout behavior and default rationale, plus error handling via an error field. This is comprehensive and adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 well-structured with a summary paragraph, behavior notes, and clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose—purpose, safety, timeout rationale, return format, and error behavior. It is front-loaded with the core function and stays focused without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains parameters, return structure (dict with host, ip, and rdap fields), error handling, and behavioral nuance (read-only, no target contact). An agent has all necessary information to call this tool correctly without needing to infer anything.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively in the Args section: 'host' is clarified as 'Hostname or IP' with an example, and 'timeout' is explained as per-request seconds with a note on why the default is high due to rdap.org's bootstrap redirect. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults. A small gap is that it doesn't specify timeout bounds or accepted formats, but it's well above the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a host and enrich its IP with RDAP registry ownership data.' It clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling recon tools (port_scan, dns_recon, etc.) by focusing on RDAP registry ownership lookup. The additional detail about being a read-only registry query reinforces its unique purpose.

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 context about the tool's behavior (read-only, nothing sent to target, timeout rationale) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for ownership/abuse contact lookup but offers no direct comparison or exclusion guidance relative to the sibling tools.

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