Получение плавающего IP

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

The description states the operation returns information, implying a read-only action, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false. This is a direct contradiction, meaning the description contradicts the structured metadata.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No irrelevant content is included, making it highly efficient.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter, the description adequately states the purpose. Although the return format is not detailed, the lack of an output schema and the tool's simplicity make this sufficient. The annotation contradiction is already penalized elsewhere.

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?

The input schema already provides a full description of the only parameter (floating_ip_id as required UUID). The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema covers, so the baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Возвращает детальную информацию') and resource ('плавающего IP') with a scope ('по его ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_floating_ips (listing) and bind_floating_ip (binding).

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 implies use for fetching details of a single floating IP by ID, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use list_floating_ips for all IPs'), so it falls short of full guidance.

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