purchase_ip

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

The annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It does so thoroughly: 'Spends real money', checked against balance and quota, requires confirm=true, operates synchronously, and returns purchased addresses directly with no task to poll. This is exceptional behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, each earning its place: what is purchased, limits and confirmation, and synchronous behavior. The most critical operational constraints are front-loaded, with no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what to expect: purchased addresses are returned directly and no polling is needed. It also supplies cost, quota, confirmation, and quantity constraints, making the tool fully callable without requiring external knowledge.

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 does: 'pop' is explained as a Point of Presence id from list_regions, 'quantity' is bounded by 'one or more' and 'at most 20', and 'confirm' is tied to spending real money via 'requires confirm=true'. All three parameters gain meaning beyond their bare schema names.

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 action ('Purchase'), the resource ('new standalone IP addresses'), and the scope ('in a region'). It differentiates this from related IP tools by emphasizing 'new standalone' addresses and the region/PoP requirement, so an agent can distinguish it from attach_ip, release_ip, or check_available_ips.

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?

It gives clear context: buy IPs in a region, at most 20, and only with confirm=true. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for attaching or managing existing IPs, but the 'new standalone' language implies when this tool is appropriate. The real-money warning also helps the agent decide whether to require confirmation.

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