usage_recent_ips

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It notes ordering, exclusions, and limit clamping (default 20, max 100). However, it does not specify if the operation is read-only, what happens with empty results, or any authentication requirements beyond JWT. The behavioral coverage is adequate but not thorough.

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 three sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Each sentence adds necessary information: what the tool does, details about the results, and exclusions. There is no redundant or extraneous text, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should clarify the return format. It states 'Returns recent client IP addresses' but does not specify whether each entry is a simple IP string or an object with additional fields like a timestamp. The exclusion of console, billing, usage, and user-management endpoints is clear, but the output structure ambiguity is a 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?

All four parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'range' presets work or providing examples. It merely restates the 'range=custom' relationship from the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves recent API client IPs for the current authenticated user. It specifies the data source (JWT-authenticated user's product API traffic), ordering (by last seen time), and explicitly lists excluded endpoint categories, making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like usage_overview or usage_endpoints.

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 provides clear context on what the tool returns and its scope (user-specific, recent IPs, excluding certain endpoints). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, such as for overall usage summaries or time-series data, which would improve guidance.

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