reserved_ip_list_by_region

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, but 'List' and 'Returns' make the read-only, no-side-effect nature reasonably clear. It does not cover edge behavior such as pagination, invalid region IDs, or ordering, though the presence of an output schema mitigates the return-format gap.

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 two short sentences plus a minimal Args/Returns section, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place and no word is wasted.

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 single-required-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics and return type. It loses one point only because it does not reference the related attached/unattached list variants to help an agent select among them when the request is for a subset.

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 input schema only specifies region as a string, so the description's clarification that it is a region ID to filter by, with concrete examples 'ewr' and 'lax', adds essential meaning. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 first sentence, 'List all reserved IPs in a specific region,' names a specific verb (list), resource (reserved IPs), and filter scope (region). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools reserved_ip_list_unattached and reserved_ip_list_attached, which target subsets rather than all reserved 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 implies the usage context: use when you need every reserved IP in a region. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over reserved_ip_list_unattached or reserved_ip_list_attached, nor does it list any exclusions or alternative tools.

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