assets_get_external_ip_address_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It adds useful context: required licenses, the HTTP endpoint, and the 100-ID limit. However, it does not describe the response format, error handling, or behavior when some IDs are invalid, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 well-structured with a title, description, license note, endpoint, and example. It is slightly redundant by repeating the title as the first line, but each section earns its place and the content is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input syntax, limits, and prerequisites. However, it fails to distinguish this tool from the similarly named sibling 'assets_get_external_ip_address_ranges' and does not explain what the returned details contain, leaving completeness gaps.

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 input schema already covers the parameter fully (100% coverage). The description adds value by specifying the 100-ID limit and providing a concrete example request body, which clarifies the expected structure beyond the schema definition.

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 tool gets external IP address range details based on range IDs. It specifies the resource (external IP address range) and the action (get), but does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling tool 'assets_get_external_ip_address_ranges' (plural), which may list all ranges.

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 mentions required licenses and a batch limit (up to 100 IDs), but provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention the plural sibling tool for listing all ranges or other asset-related tools that might overlap.

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