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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral value by specifying the full match semantics — containing ranges, contained ranges, and partial overlaps — as well as the alternate lookup by operator/source slug, which goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 with no filler. The core operation is stated first, followed by concrete use cases and the alternative input mode. Every clause contributes useful information.

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?

The description covers both parameters, the core matching behavior, and practical use cases. It does leave minor gaps: both parameters are optional in the schema, and the description does not state what happens if neither or both are provided, nor does it describe the exact return structure. However, for a read-only lookup with simple inputs, this is nearly complete.

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 each parameter has a descriptive schema entry, so the baseline is 3. The description adds further meaning by explaining how the cidr parameter is interpreted: every published operator prefix that contains, is contained by, or partially overlaps it. It also clarifies that the operator parameter returns everything published by that source, which is not stated in 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'get every published operator prefix' that contains, is contained by, or overlaps a CIDR. It also clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by framing it around crawler-range collision checks and allowlist auditing, so an agent can tell it apart from range_stats or export_ip_acl.

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 concrete when-to-use context: 'the check for does my network collide with a crawler range' and 'auditing an allowlist somebody handed you.' It also explains the alternative operator/slug input mode, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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