greynoise_ip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only lookup ('Look up') and discloses the exact return values (classification, scanner status, last seen timestamp) plus the access requirement (free, no API key). This covers the core behavioral aspects, though it stops short of detailing error handling or rate limits.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return data, and access requirement. It is front-loaded with the core action and has zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, what it returns, and the cost/access model. It lacks examples of response formats or error scenarios, but these are not critical for a straightforward lookup tool. The presence of similar sibling tools slightly lowers completeness because no differentiation is offered, but the core info is 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?

The input schema fully describes the single parameter ('ip' with description 'IP address to look up'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter format (e.g., IPv4 vs IPv6, validation rules). Therefore, the baseline score 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 verb and resource: 'Look up an IP address on GreyNoise Community API.' It also lists the return data (classification, scanner status, last seen timestamp), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'greynoise_check' or other IP lookup tools, so it misses the top score.

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 by noting 'Free, no API key required,' which suggests this is a low-friction option compared to other lookups that might require authentication. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternative tools. The implication is present but not explicit.

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