ip_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the returned facets (rules, paths, users, timeline, samples), which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about result volume, aggregation level, truncation, or the default time window behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the output facets in a compact list; no filler. It is dense to the point of being fragmentary, but every clause carries information.

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 5-parameter analytical read tool with no output schema, the description does the important work of enumerating return facets and accepted prefix formats. It is still incomplete on the time-range and interval parameters and on result size expectations, which an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 60% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description does contribute real meaning by showing that partial prefixes like '203.0.113.' and '2001:db8:0:' are accepted, which the bare 'string' schema does not convey. However, it leaves 'interval' and the interaction between 'from'/'to' and 'ip' unaddressed, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Profile of one IP or a prefix') and enumerates what the profile contains (rules, HTTP codes, distinct paths, users, timeline, samples), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings such as search_alerts or correlate_around, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance; the agent must infer that this is for investigating a single IP or CIDR prefix. The prefix examples imply the accepted input shape but do not say when this tool beats a general alert search or correlation tool.

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