Get Floating IP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'Get details' which aligns with these hints but does not provide additional behavioral context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or response structure. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 of 9 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Get'. Every word is necessary and no redundancy. It is maximally concise for the information provided.

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?

With one required parameter, no output schema, comprehensive annotations, and distinct sibling tools, the description is complete for a simple read operation. It tells the agent exactly what it does and how, with no missing information.

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 has 100% coverage with description 'Floating IP ID'. The tool description adds 'by ID', reinforcing that the parameter is an identifier. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 'Get details of a specific floating IP by ID' uses specific verb 'get' and resource 'floating IP', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like 'hetzner_list_floating_ips' (list all) and 'hetzner_create_floating_ip' (create). It explicitly identifies how the resource is identified (by ID).

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 states the tool retrieves details for a specific floating IP by ID, implying the need for a known ID. It provides clear context for when to use this tool (reading details of a single IP) versus listing or modifying. No explicit 'when not to use' is stated, but the purpose is sufficiently clear.

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