list_attachable_ips_for_vps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool's safety profile is covered. The description adds contextual detail about filtering by region and attachment status, but no additional behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, or special cases. This is adequate but not exceptional given the annotation coverage.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. The core action and object are front-loaded, and the eligibility conditions are placed at the end without unnecessary detail.

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 list operation, the description plus annotations are nearly sufficient. It states what is listed and the key filtering criteria, and the output is straightforward enough to infer (a list of IPs). The only small gap is not describing the output shape, but that is mitigated by the tool's simple nature.

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 has 0% description coverage and one required parameter, vps_id. The description indirectly clarifies that vps_id refers to the specific VPS to which the IPs are attachable ('this specific VPS'), and adds eligibility context, but it does not explain the expected format, how to obtain the ID, or any additional constraints beyond that.

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 clearly identifies the operation (list), the resource (this account's standalone IP addresses), and the specific eligibility constraints (same region, not already attached). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_ip_addresses and list_attachable_vps_for_ip by focusing on IPs attachable to a specific VPS.

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 provides clear context: this is for finding standalone IPs that can be attached to a particular VPS, with eligibility criteria stated. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this before attach_ip', but the phrase 'eligible to attach to this specific VPS' conveys the intended use case well enough.

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