Get timezone and country information by coordinates, country code/name, or IP address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | No | IP address for timezone lookup | |
| lat | No | Latitude | |
| lon | No | Longitude | |
| country | No | ISO country code (US, DE) or country name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. However, it only states the output (timezone and country info) without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires authentication. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotations.
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, efficient sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and methods without superfluous words. Every part is necessary and front-loaded.
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?
The description covers the core functionality but lacks details on expected behavior when multiple parameters are provided, whether any parameters are mutually exclusive, and what the output format is (no output schema). For a simple lookup tool, it is adequate but not fully complete.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, fulfilling the baseline. The description adds value by grouping parameters into alternative lookup methods (coordinates, country code/name, IP), clarifying that these are distinct means of querying. This goes beyond individual parameter descriptions.
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 retrieves timezone and country information using coordinates, country code/name, or IP address. It provides a specific verb ('Get'), the resource (timezone and country info), and the lookup methods, distinguishing it from siblings like geocode_address and get_weather.
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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' context, and does not mention any prerequisites or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct function: geocoding, timezone lookup, and weather retrieval. There is no overlap in their purposes.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (geocode_address, get_timezone, get_weather) and use snake_case uniformly.
Three tools is appropriate for the server's scope—geocoding, timezone, and weather—covering core needs without being excessive.
The set includes forward/reverse geocoding, timezone data, and weather forecasts. Minor gaps like weather alerts or bulk geocoding exist but are not essential for basic coverage.