geocheck_node

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

The annotations already establish read-only safety, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it waits for the result, drops the base64 SVG image and returns only the raw report, consumes node traffic, and caches/reuses results within a cooldown period for repeated calls. These are non-obvious operational traits an agent should know before calling.

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 sentences, each front-loaded with a distinct piece of information: purpose, output behavior, and caching/traffic behavior. There is no filler and every sentence 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?

For a diagnostic read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (raw report with country and blocks; SVG discarded) and the notable cooldown caching behavior. It gives an agent enough context to call the tool correctly without needing to inspect structured fields.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description refers to checking 'a node' but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 names a specific action (Run GeoCheck) on a specific resource (a node) and explains the output semantics (how services see the node IP: country, blocks). It is unambiguous and cannot be mistaken for any sibling tool in the list, none of which perform a GeoCheck diagnostic.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose statement: this tool is for checking how a node's IP is seen externally. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, nor does it mention prerequisites beyond the cooldown behavior.

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