Get Subnet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds value by confirming local execution (no API/quota) and handling of IPv6/invalid inputs, which goes beyond structured metadata.

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?

Description is two concise sentences. The first sentence directly states the primary function with an example; the second covers edge cases and execution context. No unnecessary words.

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 simple computational tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, edge cases, and execution constraints (local, no quota). All essential information is present.

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 coverage is 100% with a description for the 'ip' parameter. Description adds meaning by explaining the result is a computed /24 for IPv4 and an error message otherwise, providing context beyond the schema 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?

Description clearly states the tool derives a /24 CIDR prefix from an IPv4 address with an explicit example. It also specifies behavior for IPv6/invalid addresses, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform geolocation or validation.

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?

Description mentions local execution and no quota usage, implying use when network call avoidance is desired. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like validate_ip.

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