get_ip_pool_usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds 'No side effects,' and importantly describes the return structure (pool_id, allocation_count, allocations) and error handling ('On failure returns {"error", "hint"} instead of raising'). This goes beyond annotations and is fully transparent.

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-structured and front-loaded with the main verb. However, it is slightly verbose with multiple lines; could be more concise while retaining all necessary information.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, return structure (including edge cases), error handling, and parameter details. No gaps remain.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning: for pool_id 'IP pool ID, as returned by list_ip_pools,' and for target 'NSX Manager name from config.yaml. Uses the default target if omitted.' This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 begins with '[READ] Get current IP allocations for one IP address pool,' clearly specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_ip_pools' by explicitly saying 'one IP address pool' and provides usage context after list_ip_pools.

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 states 'Use after list_ip_pools to see how much of a pool is consumed — e.g. when diagnosing TEP address exhaustion or before retiring a pool.' This gives clear context and examples but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with other read tools like get_segment.

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