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

With no annotations available, the description itself must disclose behavior. 'Get your public IP' implies a safe, read-only network lookup, but it does not include details such as third-party dependencies, rate limits, authentication, or failure behaviors. It provides inherently minimal but correct behavioral context.

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 a single short sentence with no unnecessary words, but it begins with a '[COST]' placeholder that adds no information. Apart from that minor artifact, it is concise and 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 zero-parameter tool, the description is reasonably complete: it states the operation and the resource. An output schema exists (per context), so the return format need not be described, and there are no parameters that would require additional explanation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is a 100%-covered empty object. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and there is no parameter-specific semantics for the description to add.

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 'Get your public IP' clearly states a specific action ('get') and resource ('public IP'). It does not name sibling tools or differentiate from them, but the resource is unique and unambiguous among the many get_* siblings, so the purpose is still clear.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus sibling get_* tools. The description implies its use simply by stating the operation, but it does not provide conditions, exclusions, or fallback instructions, so usage guidance is only implied.

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