get_ip_pool_usage

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

Annotations already provide readOnly/idempotent safety, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: return shape is a single dict (not a list envelope), empty allocations list means unused rather than failure, and failure returns a specific {'error', 'hint'} structure. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 core purpose, followed by usage context, return format, and error semantics. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the returned dict fields (pool_id, allocation_count, allocations with id/display_name/allocation_ip), the meaning of an empty list, and the error format. It also covers the prerequisite list_ip_pools and the delete_ip_pool interaction, making it fully actionable.

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 100%, with both target and pool_id documented in the input schema. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('IP allocations for one IP address pool'), clearly distinguishing this from listing all pools. It explicitly says it returns a single dict, not the list envelope, which differentiates it from sibling 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this after list_ip_pools' to check consumption, for diagnosing TEP address exhaustion, or before delete_ip_pool. It also explains the prerequisite relationship and why it matters, making the invocation context unambiguous.

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