Get network info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the data source (ipify) and the distinction between public and non-internal LAN addresses, giving useful context about what the tool actually returns without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the exact data returned and then provides a concrete usage example. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 there are no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns and why it might be used. It might benefit from mentioning the output format or whether it returns both addresses in a single call, but for a zero-parameter read-only tool, the provided information is largely sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain beyond what the (empty) schema already conveys. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter semantics, which is appropriate since none exist.

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 what the tool returns: public IPv4 (via ipify) and non-internal LAN IPv4 addresses. It uses a specific verb implied by the name and resource, and the mention of ipify and LAN versus WAN distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_system_info and get_system_stats, which focus on system-level data.

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 gives a concrete use case: 'Use this to record the home WAN address on the status site.' This provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives. Given the sibling tools are topically distinct, the guidance is sufficient.

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