connections_geocheck_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important non-obvious behavior: it starts an async job on the node(s) and returns a jobId rather than the final result, which the agent must know before calling.

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 tightly written sentences with no waste. The purpose is front-loaded and the async follow-up instruction comes second, matching how an agent reads and acts on it.

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 three-parameter async job-starter with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what is checked, that a job starts, that a jobId is returned, and which tool retrieves the result. No critical calling information is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% (nodeUuid, ip, interface each have descriptions), so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource: checking how a node's exit IP is geolocated. It cleanly distinguishes itself from the sibling connections_geocheck_result and from other connections tools by focusing on geolocation of an exit IP rather than listing connections.

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 tells the agent to call this tool to start the geolocation check and explicitly routes it to connections_geocheck_result to fetch the outcome. It lacks an explicit when-not statement or comparison to other connections_* job starters, but the async workflow condition is clear.

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