resolve_ips

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does notable work: it discloses that results come from two independently-reported sources, that each result indicates which source resolved and the sync timestamp, and that it never fabricates a hostname or tag. It omits auth requirements and rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences that front-load the verb and core behavior, then layer in trust semantics and the batch limit. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are rightly omitted, and the description covers inputs, sources of truth, and call limits. What remains missing (accepted IP formats, failure behavior for unresolvable inputs) is minor given the structured schema.

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 0% and the single 'ips' parameter has no in-schema description, so the description must compensate - and it does, specifying the batch cap ('up to 50 IPs per call') and that the input is IPs. It does not clarify accepted formats (IPv4/IPv6, CIDR), leaving a small gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('resolve what each IP is') and names the two data sources (service_tag and reverse_dns), which is a concrete operational description rather than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling list_service_tag_ranges, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied (feed it IPs to learn what they are), and the 'up to 50 IPs per call' constraint gives practical context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the sibling or any prerequisites/exclusions, so guidance remains inferred.

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