my_ip

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which aligns with description. The description adds depth by specifying exactly what is returned (IP, version, privacy flag), which is useful behavior context beyond the generic read-only hint. No contradiction.

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 a single, dense sentence that immediately states the purpose, and the return fields are listed in a follow-up sentence. No fluff; 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 zero parameters and straightforward nature, the description is nearly complete. It explains what is returned, which is sufficient for an agent to call it. Could mention that it requires no input, but that is implied by the empty schema.

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 tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivial). The description adds value by explaining what the output will contain, which is the main semantic content. Baseline of 3 is suitable since there are no parameters to explain.

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's function: retrieving the public IP address of the MCP server, and specifically lists the return fields (IP, version, private flag). It is distinct from sibling tools like whois_lookup or geolocate_ip, which have different purposes.

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 implies usage (call to get server's public IP) and differentiates from geolocation or whois by focusing on the server's own IP. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough without exclusions.

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