get_ip_ranges

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool 'gets' IP ranges, implying a read operation, but offers no details on side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Basic transparency is present but lacks depth.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second adds a common use case. No extraneous words, efficiently front-loaded.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and a typical use case. However, it could be more complete by hinting at the response format (e.g., CIDR blocks) to aid post-invocation handling.

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 zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning; the baseline score of 4 applies. No additional value is required.

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 specifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('Datadog IP ranges'), and the scope (agents, APIs, APM, logs, etc.). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on IP range retrieval, a unique functionality among listed 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 provides a practical use case ('firewall/allowlist configuration') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The context is implied but not fully directive.

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