check_ip_availability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so exceptionally. It discloses that the tool combines multiple sources, provides evidence for conclusions, can report 'inconclusive', and never reports 'free' based on absence of evidence. This is far more transparent than typical tool descriptions.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by key behavioral and safety constraints. Every sentence adds essential information with no fluff.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are already specified. The description nonetheless explains the semantics of its conclusion ('in_use', 'free', 'inconclusive') and error cases, making it complete for an IP availability check. Minor gaps like parameter format do not undermine overall contextual completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'ip' must be inside the profile's configured networks and within permitted_networks, and that 'profile' determines the network configuration. However, it does not specify the IP address format (IPv4 vs IPv6) or the behavior when 'profile' is null, leaving ambiguity.

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 checks whether an address is in use within the profile's configured networks. The verb 'check' and resource 'IP availability' are explicit, and the tool is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on guests, nodes, storage, etc.

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 clear context: read-only, idempotent, refuses addresses outside permitted_networks, and raises ProfileError when no network is configured. These constraints effectively tell when the tool will succeed or fail, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer them.

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