abuseipdb_check_block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API key requirement but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return value looks like, rate limits, or other side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that likely performs external API calls.

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 short sentences, each carrying relevant information: the tool's purpose and the API key requirement. No redundant wording or filler, and the main action is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., list of reports, count, status). It also does not mention pagination or result limits. For a simple tool it covers purpose and auth, but lacks return semantics and usage context.

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 description coverage is 100%: both 'network' and 'max_age' have descriptions. The description text adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'entire CIDR network block for abuse reports on AbuseIPDB'. This explicitly differentiates it from sibling tools like abuseipdb_check (which likely checks a single IP) by the network block scope.

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 implies usage for CIDR blocks but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as abuseipdb_check or state when to prefer this tool. There are no explicit exclusions or context regarding when to use it versus other IP/block checking tools.

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