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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses that it queries ipinfo.io with a server-side token, never exposes the token to callers, lists the exact return fields, and states the failure mode as an error string. This is good transparency, though it does not explicitly say 'read-only' or mention rate limits.

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?

Three focused sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage/alternatives, and behavior/output. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, implementation details, output fields, and failure behavior, making it self-sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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% for the 'ip' parameter, and the description reiterates that hostnames are not accepted, but it does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('IPv4 or IPv6 address'), lists the output fields (geolocation, ASN, org, city/country), and distinguishes from hostname-resolution siblings by explicitly saying 'prefer dns_lookup or dossier_dns for hostname resolution.'

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?

It explicitly states 'Use when you need network or location context for a raw IP address' and provides alternative tools for hostname resolution, plus notes that hostnames are not accepted in the parameter description.

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