ip_whois

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only lookup by saying 'Who owns an IP', but it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, mention external network dependencies, or note possible latency or failure modes.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core question and then lists the useful output fields without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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's low complexity and single parameter, the description covers the basic purpose and result fields. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits details about response structure, error conditions, and how this tool relates to nearby sibling tools.

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 schema gives no description for the single `ip` parameter, so the description must compensate. 'Who owns an IP' confirms the parameter expects an IP address, but it does not specify whether IPv4, IPv6, or CIDR-style inputs are accepted, leaving some ambiguity.

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 identifies the resource (an IP address) and the purpose (ownership lookup), and it enumerates the returned data: network name, CIDR, country, org, abuse contact, and reverse DNS. It is clear enough to distinguish from domain-oriented siblings, though it does not explicitly call out a sibling alternative.

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 when to use the tool—when you need to know who owns an IP address—but it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when to prefer siblings like domain_whois or asn_lookup. The usage context is inferable from the name and content, not directly stated.

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