get_ip_relationship

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

No annotations provided. Mentions pagination support but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. For a query tool, the behavioral burden is partially unmet.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose and context. No redundancy. Could be slightly more structured but is acceptable.

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?

No output schema exists; description does not explain response structure, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., valid IP). Lacks details on pagination output (e.g., cursor usage). Incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 description coverage is 50%. Description adds 'pagination support' which loosely covers cursor and limit, but does not elaborate on parameter formats, defaults, or enum meanings beyond what the schema provides. Fails to fully compensate for low coverage.

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 verb (query), resource (IP address relationship), and specificity (specific relationship type with pagination). Distinguishes from siblings like get_domain_relationship by focusing on IP. Lists relationship types implicitly through the input schema enum.

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?

Provides context 'useful for detailed investigation of specific relationship types' but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_ip_report or get_domain_relationship. Lacks when-not-to-use guidance.

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