defender_find_machines_by_ip

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a temporal/historical framing but does not disclose the 15-minute window, result limits, pagination, or other runtime behavior; the schema partially covers those details.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence that states the tool's purpose without filler or redundancy. It is concise and easy to parse.

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 read-only lookup tool, the description plus fully described parameters and safety annotations are mostly sufficient. It does not describe the return shape, but no output schema exists and 'Find the devices' reasonably implies a list result.

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 100%, with ip, top, and timestamp all described. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond mentioning 'IP address' and 'given time', so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('devices that had an IP address around a given time'), and the IP-plus-time scope clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like defender_get_machines, defender_get_ip_alerts, and defender_find_machines_by_tag. The core function is unambiguous.

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 intended use case—historical device lookup by IP at a given time—is implied but not explicitly stated. There is no mention of when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as defender_find_machines_by_tag or defender_get_ip_alerts, nor any exclusion guidance.

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