list_attachable_vps_for_ip

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

Annotations already mark the operation as readOnly, openWorld=false, and idempotent. The description adds behavioral meaning beyond those hints by disclosing the eligibility rule (same region as the IP), which is not inferable from the schema or annotations.

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 that is front-loaded with the operation and resource, and includes the essential eligibility constraint without filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter list operation with strong readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description is nearly complete. It gives the purpose, the IP reference, and the region criterion; the only minor gap is not describing the returned VPS fields or pagination, but no output schema exists to clarify that.

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 compensate. It refers to 'this IP' and 'the IP', which maps ip_id to the IP whose attachable VPSs are returned, but it does not clarify the expected value format or that ip_id is an ID rather than an address. Some meaning is added, but the parameter remains under-specified.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('this account's VPS instances eligible to attach this IP'), and adds a key scoping constraint ('same region as the IP'). This clearly differentiates it from the inverse sibling list_attachable_ips_for_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 conveys the intended use case: finding candidate VPS instances for attaching a particular IP. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'eligible to attach' and region constraint make the selection context clear enough for an agent.

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