find_free_ip

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description reinforces 'read-only; changes nothing.' It adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: exclusions (active leases, static reservations, gateway, broadcast) and the accepted/auto-swapped behavior for start > end.

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 three tight sentences, with the core purpose and safety property first, followed by usage guidance and parameter clarification. Every clause carries information; there is no filler or duplication of the schema.

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 low-complexity read-only scan tool with two optional params, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, preconditions, exclusions, and parameter semantics. There is no missing information an agent would need to invoke it appropriately.

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?

Although the schema already describes the last-octet range with defaults, the description adds the crucial domain meaning: start/end are last octets, with a concrete example, the recommendation to avoid the DHCP pool, and the swap behavior for reversed bounds. This moves well beyond the schema's bare integer descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Suggest'), a concrete deliverable ('up to 5 unused IPs on the LAN'), and the intended purpose ('for a new static reservation'). It also notes the read-only nature and differentiates this suggestion/scan tool from sibling mutation tools like set_static_lease and pin_device.

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?

It explicitly says to use this before set_static_lease or pin_device(ip=...) to avoid conflicts, and it tells the caller to pick a range outside the router's dynamic DHCP pool. It also states what the scan excludes, so the agent knows what results mean and when the tool is appropriate.

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