contains

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It fails to specify whether the tool is read-only, what side effects occur (none expected but unstated), or what the return value looks like (e.g., boolean). The description only hints at the check operation without detailing outcomes or errors.

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 a single efficient sentence that conveys the core functionality without redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, and the example adds clarity without bloat.

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?

Despite the simplicity of the tool, the description lacks important context: no mention of the return type (boolean or other), error handling for invalid inputs, or edge cases (e.g., non-IP strings). With no output schema or annotations, this omission leaves the agent underinformed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'cidr' is a CIDR block with an example and 'address' is an IP address. However, it does not specify format constraints (e.g., IPv4 vs IPv6) or validation rules, leaving some ambiguity.

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 ('Check') and clearly identifies the resources ('IP address', 'CIDR block') with an example. It effectively communicates the tool's function without ambiguity, and the sibling tools (expand, info) are distinct enough not to cause confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when it should not be used. There are no mentions of prerequisites, limitations, or fallback options. The description simply states the action without contextual advice.

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