ip_address_lookup

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

The description discloses that the tool makes a DNS query and an optional geolocation API call, providing insight into its network behavior. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not mention potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or data handling, but the basic behavioral traits are covered.

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 sentence front-loaded with an emoji and clearly states the tool's capabilities. It contains no fluff or redundancy, but the emoji may be considered unnecessary for an AI agent.

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 tool with one parameter, the description is adequate. However, it lacks details about the output format, error handling (e.g., invalid hostname), or any additional context that would be helpful for an agent, especially given the absence of an output schema.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'input'. The description merely echoes the schema's purpose ('Hostname or IP address'), adding no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 two specific operations: resolving a hostname to IP address and looking up geolocation for an IP. It uses a strong verb ('resolves', 'looks up') and resource ('hostname', 'IP'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. Although there is a sibling tool 'dns_lookup', this description implies that ip_address_lookup additionally provides geolocation, which differentiates it effectively.

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 mentions the two use cases (hostname resolution and IP geolocation), giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or provide explicit alternatives compared to its sibling tools, such as 'dns_lookup' which likely focuses solely on DNS queries.

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