check_available_ips

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by disclosing the real-time nature ("right now") and the return content (count + price), giving the agent an accurate expectation of the tool's behavior.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the purpose (count and price) and includes the necessary source of the parameter. No filler, though it could arguably be split into two sentences for readability; still very concise.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the parameter source, the query scope, and the expected result shape. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly without further inference.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter semantics. It does: pop is clearly defined as a Point of Presence id obtained from list_regions, which is the only essential guidance for correct invocation.

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 exactly what the tool does: reports how many standalone IPs can be purchased in a given region and the current price. This distinguishes it from purchase_ip, list_ip_addresses, and other IP-related siblings without 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 makes the use case clear: checking purchase availability and price before buying. It also instructs the agent to obtain the pop from list_regions. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so it gets 4 rather than 5.

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