emu_get_phone_by_ip

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says 'Resolve... by IP address.' This implies a read-like lookup but does not disclose failure behavior, exact-match semantics, return format, or what 'phone fixture' means concretely.

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 sentence with no filler, and the core action and lookup key are front-loaded. This is an appropriate length for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

The operation is simple and one parameter is enough to call it, but 'phone fixture' is undefined, the IP format is unspecified, and there is no guidance on response behavior. Given the large sibling set and missing annotations, the description is usable but not fully complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description partially compensates by confirming ipAddress as the lookup key. However, it adds no format, validation rules, or examples; the parameter name already strongly implies the same meaning.

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 ('Resolve') and resource ('phone fixture'), and the phrase 'by IP address' identifies the key discriminator. This differentiates it from siblings like emu_list_phones and emu_get_phone_web even without naming them.

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 only implies that it is used when an IP address needs to be mapped to a phone fixture. It gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over the many sibling lookup tools, and no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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