summarize_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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns a 'summary report with statistics and map URL,' which gives some output context, but lacks details on performance (e.g., processing time for large lists), error handling, or any side effects. For a tool handling up to 500,000 IPs, this is a significant gap in 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though they could be integrated more seamlessly. There's minimal waste, but it could be slightly more concise by merging the sections into a single paragraph without losing clarity.

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 has an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description doesn't need to detail the report structure. However, with no annotations and a single parameter at 0% schema coverage, the description provides basic purpose and parameter info but lacks usage context and behavioral details. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by specifying the 'ips' parameter as a 'List of IP addresses to summarize (up to 500,000),' which clarifies the format and constraint beyond the schema's basic array type. However, it doesn't explain IP format requirements (e.g., IPv4 vs. IPv6) or validation rules, leaving some semantics unclear.

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: 'Summarize a list of IP addresses with statistics and insights.' This specifies the verb ('summarize'), resource ('IP addresses'), and output type ('statistics and insights'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'map_ips' or 'get_ip_info', which might provide overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 mentions a limit of 'up to 500,000' IPs in the Args section, but this is parameter-specific and doesn't address broader context. There's no indication of when this summary tool is preferred over other IP-related tools in the sibling list, such as 'get_ip_info' for individual IPs or 'map_ips' for mapping.

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