geo.ip

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses returned fields (country, region, city, lat/lon, timezone, ASN) but does not mention behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, error handling for invalid IPs, or response format. Adequate for a simple lookup but could be more thorough.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and outputs. No unnecessary words, making it highly efficient.

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 simple one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential returned fields. It lacks mention of error scenarios (e.g., invalid IP) but is otherwise complete for typical use.

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% (the single parameter 'ip' is well-documented as 'IPv4 or IPv6 address'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema; it only lists output fields. Baseline of 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 the tool's function: IP geolocation returning country, region, city, lat/lon, timezone, ASN. It uses a specific verb ('geolocation') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like geo.nearby or geocode.reverse by focusing on IP-based lookups.

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 (get geolocation from an IP) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., geo.nearby for coordinates, geocode.reverse for reverse geocoding). No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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