ipatlas IP geolocation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses quota semantics that no structured field provides: all IPs are validated before quota is charged, and each IP in a valid batch counts as one lookup. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and what happens to a batch containing a mix of valid and invalid addresses.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the quota rule. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, batch limit, validation, and cost model. It stops short of describing the returned geolocation fields or error behavior for invalid entries, which leaves a small gap.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description's 'public IPv4 or IPv6' wording reinforces the schema's 'public IPv4 or IPv6' constraint but adds no format syntax or detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb (look up), resource (geolocation), and scope (up to 100 public IPv4/IPv6 addresses in one call). The batching language implicitly separates it from the single-IP sibling lookup_ip, but neither sibling is named, so differentiation must be inferred.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'up to 100 ... in one call' phrasing suggests this is the batch alternative to lookup_ip, and my_location is never mentioned. No explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing condition is given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral constraint (public addresses only) and enumerates the returned fields, which substitutes partly for a missing output schema. It says nothing about rate limits, errors on private/reserved addresses, or whether results are cached or live.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core action and its useful qualifiers (single, public, IPv4/IPv6) all appear before the field list.

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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, which matters. However, an agent still lacks any guidance on failure modes (private IPs), rate limits, or which sibling to choose when handling many addresses.

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 100% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents the 'ip' argument including accepted IPv4/IPv6 formats. The description's 'public' qualifier adds a mild constraint but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (look up) and resource (geolocation for a single IP) and even enumerates the returned fields. The word 'single' implicitly contrasts with the sibling lookup_batch, though it never names it 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?

Usage is only implied: 'single' public address suggests this is for one-off lookups versus lookup_batch, but the description never states when to prefer this over the batch tool or over my_location, nor any preconditions.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned data set (continent, country, region, city, coordinates, timezone, EU status, ASN) and the subtle constraint "as seen by the API," implying the result may differ from a locally perceived IP due to proxies. It does not mention auth, caching, or error behavior for unresolvable IPs, but for a zero-parameter read-only lookup the risk surface is minimal.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the parenthetical field list justified by the absence of an output schema. No filler.

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?

With no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and establishing scope. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke this tool is missing.

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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the only input is the implicit caller context, and it adds no misleading parameter-like detail.

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?

Specific verb ("Look up") plus a precisely scoped resource: geolocation for the caller's OWN public IP. The phrase "caller's own public IP address" distinguishes it from lookup_ip (which takes a target address) and lookup_batch without needing to name them.

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 scope implies when to use it (you want your own/client's geolocation rather than someone else's), but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no sibling tools are named as alternatives. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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