lookup_ip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic function (lookup GeoIP and ASN) without mentioning any side effects, rate limits, data freshness, or that it may rely on external network calls. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's action and scope. No filler or redundant information.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, what input it requires, and the type of information it returns. It does not describe the return structure, but that is partially implied by 'GeoIP and ASN information'.

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 input schema covers the parameter 'ip' with 100% description coverage, including an example. The description adds meaning by specifying 'GeoIP and ASN information', which is not in the schema, and reinforces the type of IP addresses accepted (IPv4 and IPv6).

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 verb 'Lookup' and the resources 'GeoIP and ASN information for a specific IPv4 or IPv6 address'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'lookup_caller_ip' by indicating it works for any specified IP address, not just the caller's.

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: to get GeoIP and ASN for any IP. The sibling name 'lookup_caller_ip' provides context for when not to use this tool (i.e., for looking up the caller's own IP). However, no explicit when-not or alternative conditions are stated.

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