显式 IP 粗定位

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds useful context about coarse granularity and explicit non-substitution of IP, enhancing understanding beyond 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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the core function and precision level; the second sentence clarifies a key behavioral constraint. Every word 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to elaborate on return values. It fully covers the tool's behavior, constraints, and purpose, making it complete for its complexity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the ip parameter. However, the description adds meaning by specifying '公网 IPv4' and the guarantee of not using server IP, thus providing semantic value 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?

Description clearly states it performs coarse IP localization to province/city level for explicit public IPv4 addresses. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it does not substitute the MCP server's IP, making its purpose unique among similar location tools.

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 explicitly tells when to use (for explicit IPv4) and what it avoids (not using server IP). While it doesn't list alternative tools, the context of siblings and the clear constraints imply appropriate usage scenarios.

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