search_ip_addresses

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It describes the tool as a search operation, implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly mention that it is non-destructive or any permissions needed. The behavior is mostly clear but lacks explicit disclosure.

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 short, direct sentences with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently conveys the tool's capabilities.

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 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main use cases (search, status check, object lookup). However, it does not mention default max_results value or return format, which would add completeness for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by summarizing the overall purpose but does not elaborate on parameter interactions or provide additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 the tool searches the IPv4 address space in Infoblox IPAM, with specific actions like finding used/unused IPs, checking status, and seeing object associations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_next_available_ip or get_fixed_addresses.

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 implies usage for general IP search but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_next_available_ip or when not to use it. No exclusions or context for specific scenarios are provided.

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