search_abuseipdb

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool requires an API key, returns a confidence score and warning for high scores, and is passive and non-destructive. It does not mention rate limits, error handling, or pagination, but for a simple lookup tool, the coverage is good.

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 three sentences, each contributing essential information: purpose and returns, usage prerequisites, and usage policy. No redundant or filler content; it is front-loaded with the core action.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, return values, environment variable requirement, and authorization. It does not explain the 'ip' parameter format or error handling, but the return values are well described, compensating for the lack of output schema.

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 50% (only 'json_output' has a description). The description adds meaning by stating 'Check an IP address' and listing return fields, which implies the 'ip' parameter. However, it does not specify the expected format (e.g., IPv4/IPv6) or explain how 'json_output' affects the output beyond the schema's own description.

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 tool's purpose: 'Check an IP address against the AbuseIPDB v2 API for abuse reputation.' It specifies the verb (check), resource (IP address via AbuseIPDB), and outcome (abuse reputation). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_virustotal' or 'search_greynoise' by name and function.

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 for usage: it requires the ABUSEIPDB_API_KEY environment variable, is for authorized use only, and is passive public-source collection. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or specify when not to use this tool versus others like 'search_ip' or 'search_shodan'.

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