enrich_ips

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

Discloses read-only behavior, external API dependencies (ip-api.com free, AbuseIPDB key required), and implied network calls. Without annotations, this is good transparency.

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?

Three sentences cover all key points: purpose, blocking strategy, and data source requirements. No fluff, front-loaded with core 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?

For a single-parameter enrichment tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what data is returned, how to use it, and dependencies. Minor gap: no mention of output structure or error handling.

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 covers the 'ips' parameter with 100% description. The tool description adds value by explaining what enrichment entails (reverse DNS, ASN/org, country, score) and how results guide blocking, beyond schema details.

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?

Description clearly states the tool enriches IPs with reverse DNS, ASN/org, country, and AbuseIPDB score. It also explains the purpose: deciding blocking strategies (single IP vs. entire ASN/org). This is specific and informative.

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 guidance on how enrichment informs blocking decisions (single /32 vs. wholesale block of bulletproof host). It mentions read-only nature and prerequisite for AbuseIPDB key. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like block_ip or ip_ban_set.

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