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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description has a lower bar. It adds that results include the server assignment mapping, which is real behavioral context, but it says nothing about pagination or how many records come back by default despite exposing page/per_page parameters.

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 terse sentences with zero padding; the resource and its notable return detail are front-loaded before the endpoint reference. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (IPs plus server assignment) adequately. It is slightly thin on pagination behavior, which matters for a tool whose schema exposes paging, but overall it is complete enough to call correctly.

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% and each of the four parameters (name, page, per_page, label_selector) is documented in the schema with constraints and an example. The description adds no parameter-level meaning 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 (List) and resource (floating IPs) and adds the useful scope detail that each IP's server assignment is included, plus the underlying endpoint GET /floating_ips. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling hetzner_get_floating_ips, leaving the list-vs-get split to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as hetzner_get_floating_ips for a single resource. The 'List' verb is the only signal about context, and nothing tells the agent when this tool is the wrong choice.

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