list_public_ip_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable interpretive context beyond the annotations: the presence of a public IP resource does not mean the associated workload is internet-exposed. This helps prevent misuse of the tool's results.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, and the important caveat follows immediately. Every sentence carries meaning, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter, the description is mostly complete. It defines the operation, adds an important interpretational caveat, and the annotations cover safety and idempotency. It could optionally clarify the cloud provider or result fields, but these are not critical given the simple nature of the tool and the lack of an output schema.

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 description does not mention the only parameter, 'limit,' and the input schema provides no description for it either. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it does not. The parameter name and default value make its purpose inferable, but the agent receives no explicit guidance on semantics like maximum value, pagination, or result-count behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List Public IP resources.' It also clarifies an important semantic boundary: listing public IP resources does not prove actual internet exposure. This is clear enough to distinguish it from generic listing tools like list_resources, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 when to use the tool: when you need to list public IP resources. The caveat 'does not prove that a workload is actually internet-exposed' provides important context for interpreting results, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage guidance is present but only implied.

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