get_ip_address

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds 'full detail' and 'standalone' context, which clarifies scope but doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or error behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, and the key scoping terms ('full detail', 'standalone', 'by its id') are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is mostly adequate. However, it doesn't clarify what 'full detail' includes (e.g., attached VPS, reverse DNS, region) or how it differs from get_vps or get_volume. Given the large sibling set, a bit more context would help.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by its id' which maps to the ip_id parameter, but adds no format, source, or validation details. The parameter name ip_id is self-explanatory, so the description provides minimal added meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('one standalone IP address'), and the selection criterion ('by its id'). It clearly distinguishes from list_ip_addresses (which lists all IPs) and from VPS-related IP operations like attach_ip/detach_ip. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, so it loses a point.

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 implies usage: call when you need full detail for a single IP by id. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like list_ip_addresses for enumeration or check_available_ips for availability. The context is clear but no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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