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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: the demo-mode limitation to selected sample IPs, which warns the agent that arbitrary IPs may not resolve in demo mode. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded first, and the demo-mode caveat is a necessary second sentence. Every clause 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 1-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the input, enumerates the return fields, and discloses the demo-mode restriction. The only small gap is that it doesn't say what happens when a non-sample IP is used in demo mode (error vs empty 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — the 'ip' parameter is already documented as an IPv4 or IPv6 address with an example. The description echoes 'IPv4 or IPv6 address' but adds no new semantic detail such as accepted formats, normalization behavior, or error cases. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the weight.

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 ('Resolve'), a specific resource (IPv4/IPv6 address), and a detailed list of outputs (city, state, country, coordinates, timezone, nearest US ZIP profile). This is clear and implicitly differentiates it from siblings like geo_timezone or geo_zip_lookup, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 usage context is implied — when you have an IP address and want location-derived data, this is the tool — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives like geo_enrich or geo_city_search. The demo-mode note is a behavioral constraint, not routing guidance.

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