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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It lists the data types returned but doesn't mention any limitations, error handling, rate limits, or authentication. It doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's insufficient. A 2.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, leaving out parameter and usage information. So a 3.

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?

There is an output schema, so return format is covered. But the description lacks context about input format, usage scenarios, and behavioral traits. For a tool with one param and rich output, it's incomplete. A 2.

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 one parameter 'q' with no description and 0% coverage. The description does not mention the parameter at all, so an agent may not know what value to provide. It's likely an IP address but that's not stated. A 1.

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 states the tool provides a comprehensive IP profile including geo, ASN, and proxy/mobile/hosting flags. It distinguishes from siblings that focus on single aspects like ipgeo or asn. However, it doesn't explicitly say 'get' but it's a noun phrase that implies retrieval. So a 4.

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 usage when a full profile is needed, but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use. It doesn't mention any prerequisites or edge cases. So a 3.

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