Get IP Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some behavioral context about aggregation (shows top traffic generators), but it does not disclose details like return format, pagination, or any operational side effects. No contradiction with 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 concise, only three sentences, with the main action front-loaded. Each sentence adds value: the function, the output, and the use case. No redundancy or fluff.

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 the parameters are fully documented in the schema and annotations cover safety, the description adequately covers purpose and use cases. However, with no output schema, it could be slightly more explicit about the exact return structure (e.g., counts, sorting), though 'Shows which IPs generate the most traffic' gives a reasonable hint. Overall a minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the core dimension of 'client IP address'. Thus the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('request distribution by client IP address'). It also specifies what it shows ('which IPs generate the most traffic'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_agent_summary or get_service_summary.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('Useful for identifying heavy users, bots, or potential DDoS sources'), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tool names. This fits 'clear context, no exclusions' rather than the full 5-point guideline.

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