公网 IP 归属地查询

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world hints. The description adds valuable context about the default behavior when no IP is provided, and what information is returned, which goes beyond the 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 short sentences, no extraneous words. The information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, default behavior, and output contents. It is fully adequate.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single optional parameter, including the default behavior. The tool description adds the list of returned fields (country, region, city, ISP, ASN), enriching understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 it queries geolocation info (country, region, city, ISP, ASN) for a given public IP, and defaults to the current egress IP if none is provided. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like cn_amap_geocode which handle address geocoding.

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 explains when to use: for IP geolocation lookup or to check the current egress IP. While it does not explicitly exclude other tools, the context and sibling names make it obvious that this is for IPs, not addresses or weather. The default behavior is also clarified.

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