ip-intel

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses return fields (country, region, city, etc.) and that it accepts various input types, but does not mention rate limits, auth, or side effects. Still, it gives good behavioral insight.

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?

Two sentences: first explains purpose and returns, second adds input types and use cases. No fluff, front-loaded with key info.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with 2 params and no output schema, description covers input behavior and return fields. Lacks mention of output format but is reasonably complete.

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 100%; description adds meaning by explaining that 'targets' allows batch up to 10 and overrides 'target', and that 'target' accepts IPv4/IPv6/domain. This adds value beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it provides geolocation and network intelligence for IPs/domains, lists specific data returned, and distinguishes from siblings by specifying input types (IPv4, IPv6, domain) and use cases.

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?

Description mentions use cases (infrastructure audits, fraud detection, blockchain node geography, origin enrichment), providing context, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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