assets_get_external_ip_address_ranges

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the maximum result limit of 1000 ranges and required licenses, which are useful. It also provides an example request body. However, it does not describe the response format, pagination behavior beyond offsets, or error handling, leaving significant gaps.

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: a clear one-sentence summary, followed by key notes (limit, all/filtered, license), endpoint, and an example. The example is somewhat long but directly useful. No redundant or filler content, and the most important information is 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?

The request side is well covered by the schema and example, including filters, sorting, and pagination. However, the absence of an output schema means the description should explain what the response looks like, but it does not. The tool has a nested request structure, and while the example helps, the lack of return value information is a noticeable gap.

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 includes detailed descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example request body that demonstrates the filters structure, but it does not explain the meaning beyond what the schema provides. The example is helpful but not transformative.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and resource ('External IP Address Ranges'), with 'all' and 'list of all' explicitly differentiating it from the singular sibling tool. The additional phrase 'filtered by business units and organization handles' adds scope clarity.

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 note about retrieving all vs filtered results gives some usage context, and the required license is a prerequisite. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over its sibling (e.g., assets_get_external_ip_address_range) or any exclusion criteria. The usage is implied rather than directly stated.

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