get_host_by_ip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only notes precision and token savings—performance characteristics—but does not mention read-only nature, authentication, rate limits, error behavior, or return format. This leaves the agent underinformed about operational expectations.

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 two short clauses, front-loading the purpose and then providing usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or padding.

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 lookup with an output schema, the description is adequate. It covers purpose and usage guidance. Minor gaps (e.g., exact-match behavior, behavior when IP not found) are not critical for a tool of this simplicity, and the output schema covers return values.

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 has 100% coverage for the single ip parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the nuance of 'precise' matching, but that is already implied by the tool name and does not significantly enrich parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 queries a host precisely by IP, and explicitly contrasts it with sibling host_get as more precise and token-saving. This distinguishes it from alternatives and leaves no ambiguity about its function.

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?

It gives an explicit usage condition ('known IP → prefer this tool') and names the alternative host_get with a comparative advantage. This is clear when-to-use guidance with an implied when-not-to-use (when IP is not known).

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