Lookip

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description adds crucial behavioral detail: prefixCount is a sampled /24-size proxy, not a count of announced routes, and no API key is needed. These disclosures prevent misinterpretation and misuse without contradicting any annotation.

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 with no filler: the action and result shape come first, the critical proxy caveat is second, and a concrete example closes. Every sentence adds useful information, and the structure is scannable.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: input format, returned fields, semantics of a tricky field, auth requirements, and an example result. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents the asn parameter and its accepted string/integer forms. The description adds a concrete example ('AS15169') and explains how the value maps to the result, but this is marginal enrichment beyond the schema's own examples.

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 states a specific verb ('Look up'), the resource ('autonomous system'), and the lookup key ('by number'), then enumerates the returned fields (name, domain, country, prefixCount). The example makes the intent unambiguous and distinguishes this from the sibling asn_search by emphasizing numeric lookups.

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 clear this is for looking up an AS by its number, which implies it is the right tool when a numeric ASN is known. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the 'by number' framing and sibling name asn_search provide sufficient context for selection.

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

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

Annotations already mark it as readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds 'No key needed', which is a useful behavioral note about authentication, and the example indicates the tool returns operator name and ASN. However, it doesn't disclose whether results are paginated, sorted, or limited—though the schema covers the limit parameter. The description adds value beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the key note and an example. It is efficient and has no filler. The example could be considered optional but is concise enough to be justified.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns. The example shows 'Cloudflare, Inc. as AS13335', which implies the result includes operator name and ASN, but does not explain the response structure (e.g., list format, fields, sort order). It also doesn't mention default or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter description in the schema. Given the tool's complexity (no nested objects, few params), the gap is moderate.

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%, with each parameter already described (q, limit, country). The tool description adds an example that maps q and country to a real query but does not explain limit beyond the schema. The example reinforces parameter usage but adds marginal semantic value given the schema's clarity.

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 action 'Search the ASN directory for a network operator' with a specific resource (ASN directory) and provides an illustrative example. While it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'asn_lookup', the resource and action are clear enough for an agent to infer its purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like 'asn_lookup'. It only mentions 'No key needed', which is a convenience, but does not explain the difference between searching by name/domain and looking up a specific ASN. There is no 'use this when' clause. The example is illustrative but not a usage guideline.

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

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

The description adds operational context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: it warns that a free key is required, and it explains that lite results come from a local dataset while max provides full intelligence. It does not discuss rate limits or error behavior, but the auth requirement is a meaningful addition.

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 short sentences cover capability, mode semantics, auth, and an example with zero filler. The most important information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with complete schema descriptions and helpful annotations, the description provides everything needed to invoke it correctly, including the API key prerequisite. The only notable omission is any hint at response shape or invalid-input behavior, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% and the description goes further by explaining kind='lite' as country/ASN from a local dataset and kind='max' as full intelligence, plus showing a concrete ips example. This adds value beyond the plain property descriptions.

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 starts with a specific action ('Look up 1-100 IP addresses in one call') on a well-defined resource (IP addresses), and the batch scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like ip_lookup_lite and ip_lookup_max. The kind parameter is also clarified with concrete meanings, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does.

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 1-100 IP range plus 'in one call' provides clear context for when the batch tool is appropriate versus a single-IP lookup, and the kind field tells the agent which mode to select. It does not explicitly name excluded cases or alternatives, but the batch framing makes the intended usage obvious.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), which 'look up' confirms without contradiction. The description adds genuine value beyond those annotations: the auth requirement ('Needs a free key'), the latency characteristic (sub-5ms), the data source (local dataset), and a concrete result example ('returns US, AS15169'). This is meaningful behavioral context that helps an agent decide to call it and anticipate the response. Minor gap: it doesn't state failure behavior for invalid keys or unsupported input format.

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 short sentences with zero waste: purpose is front-loaded, then the differentiating performance/data-source detail, then the auth requirement and a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place — the example compresses both input format and return shape into a single line. Excellent structure.

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, read-only, low-complexity tool with no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden well: it lists the returned fields and gives a concrete output example. The auth prerequisite and latency are disclosed. It is slightly incomplete only because it leaves sibling routing (batch/max for broader needs) unaddressed, but for the tool's own scope nothing essential is missing.

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% — the schema already fully documents the single 'ip' parameter as an IPv4/IPv6 address with an example. The description's example ('ip="8.8.8.8" returns US, AS15169') adds a working invocation and expected output, which is marginally valuable, but it does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. This matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Look up an IP address') and enumerates the returned fields (country, continent, ASN, network operator), so an agent immediately knows exactly what this does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like asn_lookup or ip_lookup_max; the 'LITE' branding and 'local dataset' hint at the distinction but are not stated. That implicit differentiation keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: 'Served from our local dataset, sub-5ms' signals a fast lightweight option, and 'Needs a free key' states a prerequisite for calling it. However, the description never names alternatives (ip_lookup_batch, ip_lookup_max, asn_lookup) or states when NOT to use this tool versus them. With 4 siblings available, leaving the routing to inference is a real gap, so this lands at 3.

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

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that a free key is required and that the lookup returns privacy/hosting flags, backed by a concrete example, making the external credentialed nature of the tool clear. It does not cover rate limits or failure modes, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar here.

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: capability summary, key prerequisite, and concrete example. Every sentence adds distinct information, and the most important scoping details are front-loaded.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description provides the data categories, the authentication requirement, and an example of expected output. Nothing necessary for an agent to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 single required parameter 'ip' is already fully described in the schema with type and length constraints, and schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces this with an example value and its effect on output, but does not need to add much parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 characterizes the tool as a comprehensive single-IP intelligence lookup, enumerating geolocation, network/ASN, privacy, hosting, and threat categories, and the example shows expected output. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools such as ip_lookup_lite or ip_lookup_batch, so differentiation is only implied by 'MAX' and 'Full'.

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?

Usage context is implied: 'Full IP intelligence' plus the MAX/LITE sibling names suggests choosing this for comprehensive single-IP data, and the free-key requirement is stated. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, and alternative tools are not named.

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