ips_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Details for one IP' reasonably implies a read-only retrieval operation with no side effects, but it does not mention error behavior, authorization requirements, or edge cases like invalid or nonexistent IPs.

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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no filler. The Args line is minimal but earns its place for a single-parameter 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?

For a simple one-parameter getter with an output schema and no nested objects, this description is nearly sufficient. It covers the core calling scenario, though it lacks explicit routing guidance relative to list-style sibling tools.

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 for the sparse schema. It only adds 'Address' for the ip parameter, which is barely more informative than the schema's existing property name and type. It does not specify expected format, examples, or constraints.

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 resource ('one IP') and the intent ('Details'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ips_list by emphasizing a single IP. It is concise and understandable, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get details for'.

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 phrase 'one IP' implies this tool is for looking up details about a specific IP address, whereas siblings like ips_list and ips_admin_list likely handle listing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions.

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