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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds a small amount of useful context by noting assignments are included and by naming the upstream endpoint, but it says nothing about pagination behavior or result size despite exposing page/per_page.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler: the action and scope come first, and the API mapping is a compact second sentence. 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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, the essential information is present. With no output schema, though, the brief mention of 'their assignments' is the only hint at return shape, and list-vs-get selection 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so name, page, per_page, and label_selector are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format or semantic detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the load.

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 gives a specific verb (List) plus resource (primary IPs) and adds scope (their assignments), so the core purpose is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling hetzner_get_primary_ips, which an agent must choose between.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of the list-vs-get distinction against the sibling hetzner_get_primary_ips. The agent is left to infer that this is the enumerating variant.

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