get_intel_ip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through the verb 'Get' but does not explain what the returned intelligence looks like, whether account_id scoping affects results, what permissions are needed, or whether both ipv4 and ipv6 can be queried together.

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 short sentence with no padding, and the key resource is front-loaded. It is concise, though its brevity comes at the cost of behavioral and usage context.

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?

The schema fully covers the parameters, but the description does not explain the nature of the intelligence, the response format, or the relationship between this tool and the many Intel-related siblings. Without an output schema and with no annotations, the description leaves significant contextual gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters clearly, including the required account_id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the phrase 'an IP address,' so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('an IP address'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_intel_asn and get_intel_domain. However, 'intelligence' is broad and does not specify what kind of intelligence is returned (reputation, threat data, geolocation, etc.), so it is clear but not maximally specific.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_intel_domain, get_intel_asn, or get_intel_whois. The context is only implied by the name and sibling list, with no explicit selection criteria or exclusions.

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