List IPs

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 correctly labels the operation as a read ('Get'), but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, authorization, or what fields are returned. The mention of IP IDs gives minimal behavioral linking to create-order, but not enough for full 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every phrase is meaningful, with no redundancy or filler.

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 indicate what data is returned beyond IP IDs. It mentions the downstream use but omits field listings, pagination, or sorting. The parameter hints are sufficient for required inputs, but the overall completeness is moderate.

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%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions; it merely restates that filtering is by type, version, and country. No additional semantics are provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('available IPs'), and explicitly lists filtering criteria (type, version, country). It also connects the output to a downstream use case ('IP IDs can be used in create-order'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-ips-count or list-proxies.

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 implies usage context (listing IPs for use in orders) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list-proxies or get-ips-count. No exclusions or when-not conditions are stated.

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