search_exposure

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

With no annotations, the description discloses behavioral traits: 'Passive, public-source collection' indicates a safe read operation. It also mentions authorized use, adding transparency beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states purpose and content, second gives usage tip, third adds legal/ethical context. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and 2 params, the description covers the tool's output types and usage context well. It lacks output structure details but is sufficient for agent understanding.

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 50% (only json_output described). The description adds meaning for the ip parameter (omit or pass 'me' for own IP) but does not detail format or constraints for either parameter fully.

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 it provides a 'Risk-ranked IP exposure report' with specific data types (geolocation, ASN, reverse-DNS, DNS blocklists, VPN/Tor flags), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'search_ip' which likely offers basic IP info.

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 gives clear context on when to use (risk-ranked exposure) and includes a specific usage tip ('Omit ip or pass me'). It also notes authorized use but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives.

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