greynoise_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates a read-only check operation and the return of a simplified classification, which is sufficient for a simple lookup tool. It does not disclose caveats like historical data coverage or response variations, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 a single sentence that wastes no words. It front-loads the tool name and purpose, and every part contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. However, the description does not specify the possible values of the 'simplified classification' (e.g., scanner, benign, unknown), leaving the agent to guess the output format. This is a notable gap for a tool without an output schema.

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%, and the parameter description ('IP address to check') already documents the only parameter. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('check') against a specific resource ('GreyNoise') and what it determines (scanner vs benign service). It distinguishes from sibling tool greynoise_ip by emphasizing 'Quick' and 'simplified classification.'

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like greynoise_ip. While 'Quick' implies a lightweight use case, there is no clear when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of alternatives.

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