what_is_my_ip_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait beyond the schema: this is a legacy/backward-compatible shim rather than a stand-alone capability. However, it says nothing about whether it behaves identically to get_egress_ip, side effects, or auth needs.

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?

Two short clauses with zero filler, and the alias classification is front-loaded before the redirect. Nothing to trim.

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 deprecated alias, the single most important piece of information (use get_egress_ip instead) is present, which may be sufficient in practice. But with three undocumented parameters, including a payment signature, and no output schema, an agent lacks enough context to invoke it correctly if it must.

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?

Three parameters (input_data, parameters, payment_signature) with 0% schema description coverage and no explanation in the description. The payment_signature parameter in particular implies a paid/authenticated call path that is never addressed, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 never states what the tool actually does (return the caller's public/egress IP); it only flags itself as a backward-compatible alias and names the successor. The redirect to 'get_egress_ip' does distinguish it from the 60+ siblings by effectively removing it from consideration. Purpose is inferable but not stated.

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?

It explicitly says to use 'get_egress_ip' instead, which is clear when-not-to-use guidance and names the exact alternative. It stops short of 5 because it does not say whether this alias is safe to call at all or when a legacy caller would still be forced to use it.

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