ipinfo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what information is retrieved (geolocation and network info) but doesn't mention behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or potential errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the key action ('Get') and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence 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?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks context on behavioral aspects (e.g., response format, error handling) and doesn't differentiate from siblings. For a tool that retrieves potentially sensitive geolocation data, more completeness is needed to guide an agent effectively.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it naturally compensates by focusing on the tool's purpose. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it appropriately avoids unnecessary parameter details.

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's purpose: 'Get geolocation and network information for the current request's originating IP address.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('geolocation and network information'), and scope ('current request's originating IP address'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'lookup_ip' (which presumably looks up other IPs), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'lookup_ip' or clarify that this tool is specifically for the current request's IP, while 'lookup_ip' might be for arbitrary IPs. There's no explicit when/when-not usage advice, so it scores low.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return data structure (city, region, etc.) and that it's a lookup operation, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. It adequately describes what the tool does but misses some behavioral traits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by specific return details. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It clearly states the purpose, usage, and return values. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return format or error cases, but it's sufficient for basic understanding.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'ip' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get geolocation and network information') and resource ('for a specific IP address'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_my_ip' by specifying it's for looking up a provided IP rather than retrieving the user's own IP.

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 context by stating it's for a 'specific IP address,' which differentiates it from the sibling tool 'get_my_ip' that likely retrieves the user's own IP. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions.

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