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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the origin is the caller's IP (the user when run client-side), that no connection is made to the target, and that the return is structured endpoints plus an SVG link intended for the human. It omits caveats about geolocation accuracy and failure modes, but the key behavioral traits are surfaced.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the output shape, then the crucial non-contact caveat. No filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description specifies what comes back (structured endpoints plus map link) and clarifies audience of the image and that the target is never contacted. Only missing pieces are behavioral edges like geolocation accuracy or error handling, which are minor here.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'host' as a hostname or IP with an example. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear specific verb (Show) and resource (network path from caller to target host on a world map), with the three outputs enumerated (origin, destination, great-circle distance). The 'network path' phrasing could momentarily suggest a traceroute, but the description immediately clarifies it is geolocation plus great-circle distance. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many geo/DNS siblings such as asn_geoip or passive_dns.

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?

No explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative. Context is implied by the described outputs: use it when you want a caller-to-host geographic visualization with distance, not a trace or reputation check. Acceptable but leaves the agent to infer selection versus asn_geoip or dns_lookup.

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