search_greynoise

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses the passive, public-source nature and the rate limit. It does not discuss error handling or behavior on exceeding limits, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 sentences: purpose/results, rate limit, authorization. Front-loaded with key information, no redundant 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?

No output schema, but the description enumerates return fields. It covers authorization, rate limits, and data source. Lacks error handling details but is sufficient for a simple IP lookup with the given complexity.

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% (json_output has a description). The description adds value by listing output fields but does not clarify the expected format for the ip parameter (e.g., IPv4/IPv6, CIDR). This partially compensates but leaves a gap.

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 checks an IP against the GreyNoise Community API, explains its purpose (distinguishing internet background noise from targeted actors), and lists returned data (classification, noise/RIOT flags, org, last-seen). This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_shodan or search_virustotal.

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?

Provides explicit context: rate limit of 50 lookups/week and authorized use requirement. However, it does not specify when not to use or suggest alternative tools, which would improve guidance.

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