Get address group details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds that it returns 'full details' and member IPs, which is consistent. No additional behaviors (e.g., pagination, rate limits) are discussed, but the annotations cover the primary behavioral trait.

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 sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a concrete usage example. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (single parameter, read-only, no output schema) and the presence of helpful annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it.

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 describes the 'name' parameter with an example, and the description reinforces with similar examples. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal new semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get full details' and the specific resource 'address group', and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_address_groups (which lists names) and get_address (single IP). It also specifies what is included: 'all member IPs/addresses'.

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 a clear usage context by suggesting it's useful for finding IPs in groups like 'Wifi', 'IT Team', etc. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., using list_address_groups for a quick overview).

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