user_get_ip_whitelist_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It makes clear this is a retrieval operation that returns entry details, but it does not disclose authentication needs, not-found behavior, or explicitly confirm there are no side effects. For a simple read operation, this is minimally adequate but not rich.

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 well-organized into Args and Returns sections with no filler. Every line adds useful information, and the main purpose is stated first.

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 three-parameter read operation with an output schema, the description covers the required parameters and the return concept. It does not discuss exact-match semantics or prerequisite existence of the entry, but these are minor gaps for a simple GET-like tool.

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 provides only types with 0% schema description coverage, so the description compensates fully. It explains that user_id can be a UUID or email, gives a concrete subnet example ('8.8.8.0'), and clarifies subnet_size with the '/24' example.

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 opening sentence clearly states the operation ('Get'), the resource ('specific IP whitelist entry'), and the scope ('for a user'). The word 'specific' distinguishes it from the sibling listing tool user_get_ip_whitelist and the add/remove tools.

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 this is for retrieving a single whitelist entry rather than listing all entries, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when to choose this tool over user_get_ip_whitelist. Use context is implied by the tool name and the word 'specific'.

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