list_ip_blocks

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, and the description aligns with that consistently. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the annotation (e.g., no mention of pagination, result size, or side effects). With annotations covering the read-only nature, the description adds minimal incremental transparency.

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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and free of extraneous information. It efficiently states the action and target without redundancy.

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 list operation with two well-documented parameters and a read-only annotation, the one-line description is sufficient. It covers the core purpose, and the schema handles parameter details. While it lacks optional usage hints, its brevity is acceptable for the tool's straightforward nature.

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 provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (:depth and :filters), including detailed context for filters (e.g., the retry advice). The tool description contributes no extra parameter semantics, 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 'List all reserved IP blocks in your IONOS CLOUD account' uses a specific verb (List) and resource (reserved IP blocks), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_ip_block. The scope 'all' and 'in your IONOS CLOUD account' is unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_ip_block for a specific block) or when not to use it. The description does not mention any exclusions or context for selection, leaving usage to inference.

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