get--v3-ips

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List account IPs' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'account IPs' encompasses (e.g., dedicated vs. shared). The description lacks crucial context for safe and effective use.

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 extremely concise at just three words, front-loading the core purpose with zero wasted language. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though it could benefit from additional context.

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 tool with 2 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the parameters do, what the output looks like, or behavioral constraints. Given the complexity implied by filtering parameters and the lack of structured documentation, this description leaves too many gaps.

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 2 parameters (dedicated, enabled) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description 'List account IPs' doesn't mention these parameters at all, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. Users have no clue what these boolean filters do.

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 'List account IPs' clearly states the action (list) and resource (account IPs), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get--v3-ip_pools' or 'get--v3-ips-ip', which appear related to IP management but serve different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to IPs and domains, there's no indication of whether this is for listing all account IPs, filtered IPs, or how it differs from other IP-related tools like 'get--v3-ip_pools'.

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