enrich_ips

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, mentions data sources (ip-api.com, AbuseIPDB), and includes a limit of 100 IPs. This is sufficient behavioral disclosure for a non-destructive tool.

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 concise, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and provides additional context. It is a single paragraph that earns its content, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating prerequisites from functionality).

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?

Given the tool has one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (enrichment data). It explains the purpose and data sources, but the output format is not explicitly described. Overall, it is complete enough for this simple tool.

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 100% as the single parameter 'ips' has a clear description in the input schema (format and max count). The tool description adds context about what enrichment is performed, but does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is 3.

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 enriches IPs with specific data (reverse DNS, ASN/org, country, AbuseIPDB score), providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on enrichment for blocking decisions, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: to decide how to block IPs (single /32 vs ASN/org). It also mentions prerequisites (AbuseIPDB key) and data sources. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives.

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