abuseipdb_reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement (ABUSEIPDB_API_KEY) and the return content (report comments and categories), but does not mention rate limits, error behavior, or that this is a read-only operation beyond the verb 'Get'.

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 short, front-loaded sentences, each providing distinct value: the action, the return details, and the prerequisite. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 straightforward read-only API with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It states what data is returned, and the schema fully covers parameter semantics. It could optionally mention the nature of 'categories' (e.g., numeric IDs), but that is not critical for invoking the tool.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters ('ip', 'limit', 'max_age'), including defaults. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies as the schema already documents them.

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 action: 'Get individual abuse reports for an IP from AbuseIPDB.' It specifies the resource (individual abuse reports) and the source (AbuseIPDB), and contrasts with sibling tools like 'abuseipdb_blacklist' and 'abuseipdb_check' by focusing on detailed report comments and categories.

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 when detailed abuse reports are needed, and notes the API key requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'abuseipdb_check' or 'abuseipdb_blacklist', nor does it mention exclusions or fallback scenarios.

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