iaas_get_internal_network_ip_ranges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the raw endpoint path, which is already present in the annotation title, and says nothing about pagination, result size, or whether the response is filtered by project/scope.

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?

Three lines where two are near-identical restatements ('Get internal IPAM network IP ranges' / 'Get all internal IPAM network IP ranges') and the third is a bare HTTP path duplicating the title. The redundancy wastes the limited description budget rather than front-loading useful scope 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 read-only, single-parameter list tool with rich annotations and 100% schema coverage, the definition is minimally sufficient to call correctly. It is incomplete in that it never clarifies the collection's scope (unfiltered? tenant-wide?) or its sibling relationship, both relevant given the many similarly named IP-range tools.

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 100% and there is a single optional apiVersion parameter already documented in-schema. The description contributes nothing about the version header, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get all internal IPAM network IP ranges'), so the agent knows this is a list operation over internal IPAM ranges. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as iaas_get_internal_network_ip_range (singular, by ID) or iaas_get_fabric_network_ip_ranges, leaving the plural/singular routing purely to the name.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the singular get, the external network IP ranges variant, or the fabric network IP ranges tools. The plural implies a collection endpoint, but that inference is left entirely to the agent.

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