my_public_ip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so well. It transparently reveals that the tool makes external network calls to Cloudflare's trace endpoint and Team Cymru's ASN DNS, and explains why an outside observer is needed. This gives the agent important context about network dependence and external service usage without any contradictions.

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 wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the tool's output and core value, while the second sentence adds necessary behavioral context about external dependencies. Every phrase contributes meaning.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it enumerates all returned data fields, explains the mechanism, and implies the need for internet connectivity. An agent can decide to invoke the tool and know what to expect from the response.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description reinforces that the tool operates on 'this machine' and requires no caller-supplied input, so an agent knows there are no arguments to configure.

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 exactly what the tool returns: the public IP address as seen from the internet, plus edge location, reverse DNS, ASN, organisation, and datacenter/VPN hint. It clearly identifies a specific resource and outcome, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'gets' or 'returns.' The subject matter also differentiates it from siblings like reverse_dns and dns_lookup, which focus on other DNS/IP lookups.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the description indicates this tool requires an outside observer and external network calls, so it should be used when an agent needs the machine's egress/public IP. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools for related needs, such as reverse_dns for a specific IP's PTR record.

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