get_ip_info

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

With no annotations provided, description carries full burden. It discloses external call to ip-api.com, network dependence, potential slowness offline, and error behavior for invalid IPs. Good coverage of key behavioral traits.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the primary function, then add caveats and use case. No wasted words.

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 simple tool with one optional param and existing output schema for return structure, description fully covers purpose, behavior, and context. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters with description identical to tool description ('defaults to your public IP'). No additional parameter-level insight provided; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'IP', listing exact data types (geolocation, ASN/organization, provider tags). Clearly distinct from sibling tools like ping_host or resolve_dns.

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?

States intended use case ('network egress and remote-peer context') and caveat about network dependency. Does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but context is sufficient given uniqueness among siblings.

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