stealer_ip

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds the authentication requirement and clarifies the return type (compromised machines). However, it does not disclose details like rate limits, pagination, or data freshness. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action. Each sentence adds value: purpose, output, and requirement. There is zero fluff or repetition.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It gives purpose, input, a high-level output description, and an auth requirement. It does not mention any constraints like result limits, but given the simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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 already describes the single 'ip' parameter as 'IP address to search' with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional format or semantic details about the parameter, so the baseline of 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 tool's function: 'Search Hudson Rock Cavalier stealer logs by IP address.' It specifies the resource (stealer logs) and the search key (IP address), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like stealer_domain and stealer_email by the search parameter. The output is also described: 'Returns compromised machines originating from that IP.'

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when searching by IP address. It also mentions a prerequisite: 'Requires HUDSONROCK_API_KEY.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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