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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the bar is lower. The description adds only the HTTP endpoint, and says nothing about failure modes (missing/nonexistent id), rate limits, or what the returned object contains.

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?

Two short sentences with the operation front-loaded and zero padding. The first sentence is generic family boilerplate rather than floating-IP-specific, which slightly dilutes it, but nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema to explain, the description supplies the operation and the exact REST path, which is sufficient to invoke correctly. Only failure behavior is unaddressed.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents "The resource's numeric id." The description adds no format, range, or sourcing guidance beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource pattern ("Fetch a single resource by id") and the concrete endpoint GET /floating_ips/{id}, which pins it to floating IPs and to a single-item retrieve. It distinguishes itself from the sibling hetzner_list_floating_ips by the id-based single-resource phrasing, though the first sentence is generic boilerplate shared across the family.

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 only implied: the id parameter and "single resource" wording signal this is the by-id lookup counterpart to hetzner_list_floating_ips, but the description never states when to prefer either. No prerequisites, auth requirements, or 404 behavior are mentioned.

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