Get WARP SIP ingress servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds value by detailing the return content (UDP/TCP/TLS hosts, IPs, ports), which is not in annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences. First sentence states purpose and resource, second sentence provides usage guidance. No filler words. Front-loaded with key information.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description completely covers what the tool returns (ingress server details) and when to use it. No gaps given the simplicity.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. Baseline is 4 since no parameters to document. Description does not need to add parameter info.

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 verb 'Get' and specific resource 'customer-facing WARP SIP edge servers' with technical details (UDP/TCP/TLS hosts, IPs, ports). Distinguished from sibling tools like net_get_vendor_ips and trunk_list_ips by specifying WARP SIP ingress.

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?

Description provides explicit usage context: 'Use when configuring SIP endpoints or firewall rules toward WARP.' Though it does not list alternatives or when not to use, the context is clear and actionable.

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