hcloud_list_bandwidths

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of pagination behaviour, whether results span regions, or what 'limit' defaults to. No contradiction with annotations, but zero added value.

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 words, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy — there is no structure, no front-loaded scope, and no sentence that carries information beyond the title. Nothing is wasteful because there is almost nothing there.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description should at least identify the resource domain and result shape. It leaves the agent guessing what a 'bandwidth' object is and whether region narrows the listing, which is inadequate even for a simple read tool.

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% (region: 'Region', limit: 'Max results'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional meaning to either parameter — it does not clarify the region format, whether region is mandatory in practice, or how limit interacts with paging.

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?

"List bandwidths" restates the tool name with a verb and a resource noun but gives no scope: it does not say whose bandwidths (shared EIP bandwidths, per-region quotas, etc.), nor how this differs from any of the ~100 sibling list tools. An agent cannot distinguish it from hcloud_list_public_ips or hcloud_list_eip_quotas based on the description alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, no prerequisites or exclusions. The only inferable usage is 'call it when you want bandwidths', which is a restatement of the name. With so many near-neighbour tools (public IPs, EIP quotas), the missing routing guidance is a real gap.

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