search_exposure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: 'Passive, public-source collection' (non-intrusive) and 'Authorized use only' (legal constraint). However, it omits potential details like rate limits, data freshness, or error behavior for unreachable IPs.

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 and covers purpose, usage tips, and behavioral constraints. It is front-loaded with the primary function. Some legal language could be considered extraneous, but overall it is concise and efficient.

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 moderate complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: data contents, optional parameter usage, and collection method. It does not describe the response format in detail (e.g., JSON structure), but lists the data fields. This is adequate for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains that omitting the 'ip' parameter or passing 'me' checks the caller's own IP. This compensates for the schema lacking a description for 'ip'. For 'json_output', the schema already describes it, so the description does not need to add more.

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 points (geolocation, ASN, reverse-DNS, DNS blocklists, VPN/Tor flags). It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_ip by emphasizing risk ranking and passive public-source collection.

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 the tool (for IP exposure reports) and a specific usage hint ('Omit ip or pass me to check caller own IP'). However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use this tool over alternatives like search_ip or search_shodan, and lacks explicit usage exclusions.

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