network_ip_geolocation

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

Despite annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable behavioral context: outbound network request, dependency on live third-party data, rejection of private/reserved IPs, and rate limits (10 req/min, 300/day anonymous). This goes beyond the minimal annotation coverage.

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 dense paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, usage, behavioral details, constraints, and output structure. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (external API, rate limits, private IP validation) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to use it, behavioral caveats, constraints, and output structure. No gaps are evident.

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 detailed descriptions for both parameters (ip and worker_id). The description adds some context (e.g., IP must be public, output objects listed) but does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score 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 clearly states the tool resolves a public IPv4 or IPv6 address to geographic location and network owner using ip-api.com. It distinguishes itself from sibling network_my_ip by specifying that this tool requires an input IP while the sibling geolocates the caller's own IP.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you have an IP and need its country, city, coordinates, ISP/ASN...') and when to use the alternative network_my_ip. This provides clear decision guidance.

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