audit_public_ipv4_addresses

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the behavioral context about AWS charges since Feb 2024 and the focus on unattached/stopped IPs. However, it does not discuss permission requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only (though likely audit is read-only). Annotations would have provided this; the description adds moderate value.

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 concise, front-loading the main purpose, includes structured arguments and examples, with no redundant sentences. Every sentence 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 tool has a simple input schema (1 param) and an output schema (though not detailed here), the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and what it returns (release recommendations). It is complete for a focused audit tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds useful meaning: 'regions: AWS regions to scan. Defaults to all opted-in regions.' This explains the parameter's purpose and default behavior beyond the schema's type definition.

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 it audits public IPv4 addresses across AWS, specifies it finds unattached Elastic IPs and IPs on stopped instances with release recommendations. This provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling audit tools.

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 and examples implicitly guide when to use the tool, such as 'Find unattached Elastic IPs we can release' and 'How much are we spending on public IPv4?'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings.

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