list_ip_addresses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds useful context about scope (account-wide, standalone, attached or not), but it does not disclose any additional behavior such as pagination, ordering, or filtering. This is adequate but not rich.

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 single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the clarifying scope. 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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation, the description provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly. Since there is no output schema, the description could optionally mention the response shape, but the scope statement itself is complete for the tool's purpose.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description's scope note is sufficient, and the schema contains no properties to document.

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 and resource: 'List every standalone IP address on this account', with an explicit scope qualifier '(attached to a VPS or not)'. This clearly distinguishes it from single-IP tools like get_ip_address and from VPS-scoped IP tools like 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 makes the usage context clear: it is the account-wide listing for standalone IP addresses, regardless of attachment status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the scope leaves little ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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