Bulk IP Geolocation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by detailing credit costs (1 base, +2 security, +1 abuse), billing only for valid IPs, and ignoring private/bogon IPs. It also explains that fields auto-add include modules, which is 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?

The description is a single paragraph of moderate length. It front-loads the core purpose and endpoint, then covers credits, usage, and param behavior efficiently. Could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) but still very readable and not verbose.

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?

Covers most key aspects: endpoint, paid nature, credit cost breakdown, IP limits, billing rules, and param behaviors. It references lookup_ip for field/excludes behavior, linking sibling knowledge. No output schema, but return values are not essential for a bulk lookup. Minor gaps: no mention of rate limits or error handling, but overall complete.

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% (all 6 parameters have descriptions). The description adds operational context: credit cost implications for include, how fields trigger auto-inclusion of modules, and the limit of 1,000 IPs. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Read-only bulk IP lookup via POST /v3/ipgeo-bulk', clearly identifying the verb (lookup), resource (IPs), and endpoint. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting 'For security-only batches, use bulk_security_check.'

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use when multiple IPs or domains need location data or mixed IP domains.' It also gives a clear when-not directive by naming an alternative tool for security-only batches.

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