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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false): the price is charged up front and is non-refundable, a live price above the agreed amount is refused before any charge, and repeating the same call cannot buy twice. This is exactly the money-and-side-effect context an agent needs and that the schema/annotations do not carry.

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?

Front-loads the no-argument first call, then the pricing/confirmation contract, with the critical 'Never buy without asking' bolded. It is long, but for a tool that spends money every sentence is load-bearing; only the introductory explanation of what a dedicated IP is could be trimmed.

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 no output schema, the description still names the return fields (`priceCents`, `message`, `mustFirst`) and the full confirm-before-charge loop, including the prerequisite path. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real workflow meaning: `confirmPriceCents` is the agreed price from the unconfirmed call and is the only thing that buys, `another` is only for a user-requested second IP, and `country`/`termDays` defaults (US, 30) are restated in context of the pricing flow.

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?

Names a specific action (lease/buy a dedicated IP) and explains exactly why it exists: sites like LinkedIn that only accept a login from the original address. It routes to the sibling `get_library` for locating such sites, so an agent can distinguish this from the other connection/secret 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?

Explicit sequencing: 'Call with no arguments first', stop and hand the user the `mustFirst` link if a prerequisite exists, and only buy after telling the user the exact price. It also scopes `another: true` to 'only when your user asked for a second IP' — clear when-to-use and when-not.

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