abuseipdb_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It notes the API key requirement and specifies the return fields, which is helpful. Yet it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention any potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication failure behavior, so transparency is partial.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds value. It efficiently conveys purpose, returned data, and a key prerequisite without any fluff.

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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description provides a reasonable overview of inputs and outputs. It lacks an explicit output schema, but the description enumerates the main return values. Some context about error handling or when to pick this over sibling tools would improve completeness, but it's decent overall.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (ip, max_age, verbose) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already states, so it remains at the baseline of 3.

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 address against AbuseIPDB and lists the return values. This distinguishes it from siblings like abuseipdb_blacklist or abuseipdb_reports, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate between check and check_block, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 use case is implied: if you need to check a single IP, this tool does that. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as abuseipdb_check_block, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the API key.

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