get_ip_ranges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'IP ranges information including IPv4 and IPv6 blocks,' which hints at output format, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by defining the tool, parameter, and output without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the parameter and output at a high level but lacks behavioral details like error cases or usage context. With no annotations and simple schema, it meets basic needs but could be more informative.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'domain: Domain name to lookup.' Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only provides a title 'Domain' with no description), this compensates well by explaining the parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., TLD requirements) or examples, preventing a perfect score.

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's purpose: 'Get IP ranges owned by a domain/organization.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('IP ranges'), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_ip_info or get_ip_org by focusing on ownership mapping rather than general IP information. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like get_hosted_domains or whois_lookup_by_domain, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like get_ip_org (which might return organization info for an IP) or whois_lookup_by_domain (which could provide related domain data), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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