list_locations

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds the scope 'available locations (regions)' and 'IONOS CLOUD.' It does not disclose further behavioral traits like pagination, authorization requirements, or return collection shape, but for a simple listing tool this is acceptable and does not contradict annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose and scope.

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, zero-required-parameter listing tool with full schema coverage, this description is largely complete. The absence of an output schema means return-value details are not strictly required, though a note distinguishing this from `list_object_storage_regions` would improve completeness.

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 the input schema already documents both `depth` and `filters`, including the filter caveat about silent empty results. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb-plus-resource construction: 'List all available locations (regions) in IONOS CLOUD.' It clearly states the tool's function and scope, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling `list_object_storage_regions`, which could cause selection ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `list_object_storage_regions` or `get_object_storage_region`. It only implies enumeration via 'List all,' with no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-tool references.

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