ip_lookup

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

The description accurately reflects a read-only lookup operation and adds helpful qualifiers like 'if available' and 'when present.' It does not contradict the readOnlyHint annotation, though it omits potential error or rate-limit behavior.

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 sentences, free of fluff, and front-loads the core purpose before listing specific return categories.

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 provided, the description usefully enumerates expected return data. It lacks error/edge-case details, but the listed outputs give sufficient context for typical use.

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 schema already documents the ip parameter as 'The IP address to query,' and the description repeats this without adding format constraints, IPv4/IPv6 guidance, or examples. Schema coverage is effectively complete, so baseline score 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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves comprehensive information about an IP address and enumerates the types of data returned (geolocation, open ports, services, SSL certificates, hostnames, cloud details). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dns_lookup or cve_lookup.

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 makes the tool's scope clear but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as shodan_search or dns_lookup. Usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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