get_address_list_entry

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

The read-only and idempotent hints already cover safety, but the description adds no behavioral context such as exact-match semantics, what happens when the entry is not found, or whether family affects lookup. It essentially restates the tool's purpose rather than disclosing behavior beyond 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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler; it states the verb, resource, and lookup keys efficiently. There is no redundant repetition of the tool name or schema fields.

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?

Although an output schema covers return values, the description is too thin for an agent to understand the full lookup contract: it omits family and gives no guidance about matching behavior. For a getter with a required enum parameter, this is a meaningful completeness gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the parameters, but it only references list_name and address and ignores the required family parameter. Device is entirely unexplained, leaving an agent to guess the lookup semantics from parameter names alone.

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 action and resource—'Gets one address list entry'—and distinguishes itself from list_address_list_entries by emphasizing a single entry. It clearly identifies lookup keys 'list name and address', though it omits the required family parameter from that enumeration.

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?

No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over the many sibling address-list tools (list_address_list_entries, get_ip_address, etc.) or when not to use it. The only implicit signal is 'one entry', which is too weak to serve as usage guidance.

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