List floating IPs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the pagination behavior ('Paged with limit and marker'), which the schema already states, and says nothing about result ordering, page size limits, or empty 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned. The second sentence largely restates schema-level pagination detail, so it is efficient but not maximally informative per word.

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?

Return shape is covered by the output schema, but three filter parameters are undocumented anywhere, and an agent cannot tell that status, port_id and floating_network_id are available as filters. For a six-parameter listing tool that is a material omission.

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 coverage is 50%: limit, marker and project_id are documented, but status, port_id and floating_network_id have no description in either the schema or the tool description. The description mentions only limit and marker, which are already fully documented, so it fails to compensate for the gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the project's floating IPs') plus the useful detail that the ports they map to are included. Sibling tools operate on different resources (subnets, ports, routers), so differentiation is inherent, but the description does not explicitly contrast with list_ports even though floating IPs map to ports.

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 on when to use this list tool versus get_port or list_ports for the mapping question, and no note on when filtering by status/port is appropriate. The only usage-adjacent content is the pagination note.

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