check_available_ips

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotentched. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: monthly_price is recurring, not one-time; divide by 720 for hourly comparison; and unlike cpu_price/ram_price/disk_price, it is not already hourly. This goes beyond the annotations and prevents a likely unit misreading.

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 bit long but every sentence contributes: the first sentence covers the core purpose, and the rest explains a critical pricing-unit distinction. The repeated warning 'don't assume the same unit for all of them' is slightly redundant but reinforces an easy mistake.

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 no output schema, the description usefully names monthly_price and contrasts it with cpu_price/ram_price/disk_price. It does not enumerate the full response shape, but it covers the key interpretation pitfalls an agent needs to correctly use the result.

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 schema only defines 'pop' as an integer with no description, so the description carries the burden. It compensates by explaining that pop is the Point of Presence id from list_regions, giving the agent a concrete way to obtain a valid value.

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 action—checking how many standalone IP addresses can be purchased and at what price—tied to a specific resource (a region/PoP) and a time window ('right now'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like purchase_ip, which actually purchases, and list_ip_addresses, which lists existing IPs.

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 gives clear context: use it to check availability and pricing per region, and it even points to list_regions for the PoP id. It does not explicitly say 'use purchase_ip to actually buy' or list exclusions, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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