get_ptr_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific resource (PTR record) but does not disclose additional behaviors such as error handling, authentication needs, or response format. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence that conveys the purpose and includes the API path. There is zero fluff, and the essential information is 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?

For a simple read-only tool with two well-described parameters, the description is sufficient. It does not specify the return structure, but given no output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation, this is a minor gap. The tool's complexity is low, so the description is adequately complete.

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 100% description coverage, with each parameter (id, ip) fully documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (get) and resource (PTR record for an IP address), clearly identifying what the tool returns. The inclusion of the internal API path 'ip/get_ptr' adds specificity and distinguishes it from sibling update_ptr_record by its read-only nature.

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 (to fetch a PTR record) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like update_ptr_record. There is no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites, though the get/update distinction is inferable from the name.

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