get_ip_utilization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds contextual detail about returning a utilization report with percentages per space/block/subnet and scope behavior. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra value beyond them, though it does not cover edge cases like invalid 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?

The description is well-structured with sections for purpose, usage, arguments, returns, and examples. Every sentence contributes useful information without fluff or redundancy.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema available, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter meaning, return value characteristics, and sibling differentiation. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to select and invoke 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?

The schema has one parameter 'scope' with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining 'Optional IP space name to focus on. If not set, shows all' and provides concrete examples for both usage patterns.

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 'Get IP address utilization percentages for capacity planning' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming explore_network() and check_infrastructure_health() as alternatives.

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 explicitly says 'USE THIS to find overutilized subnets and plan expansions' and provides direct alternatives: 'For hierarchy browsing use explore_network(). For infrastructure health use check_infrastructure_health().' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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