check_ip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the tool is safe. Description adds value by noting no API key required and interpreting results ('red flags'), which aids agent decision-making.

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 in the first paragraph cover the core functionality, and a second contextual sentence provides usage guidance. Concise, front-loaded, no redundant information.

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 output schema available, the description covers tool purpose, usage, and key result interpretation. Missing details like data freshness or rate limits, but acceptable for a read-only tool with openWorldHint.

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 0% at top level, but property descriptions exist for both parameters. The tool description reinforces the ip parameter but does not elaborate on response_format. Overall, schema handles details adequately, yielding baseline score.

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 explicitly states the tool checks an IP against specific blocklists (FireHOL, Tor exit list) and identifies ASN/org/country, with a datacenter heuristic. It clearly distinguishes from sibling check_* tools by focusing on IP addresses.

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 explicit use case ('when you have an originating IP from email headers') but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. Still, the context is clear and helpful.

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