get_ip_location

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 mentions that omitting the IP returns the current location, which is useful context, but does not cover other aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data sources. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. However, without annotations, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like rate limits or errors, which could be important for robust usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'ip' parameter: 'IP address to lookup. If None, returns current location.' This adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying the default behavior. However, it does not detail format constraints (e.g., IPv4 vs. IPv6) or validation rules, slightly limiting completeness.

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's purpose: 'Get just the coordinates for an IP address.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('coordinates'), but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_ip_city' or 'get_ip_country' beyond the focus on coordinates. The title is null, so the description carries the full burden.

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 by stating 'If None, returns current location,' which suggests when to omit the parameter, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_ip_info' or 'map_ips.' No exclusions or comparisons to siblings are mentioned, leaving usage context partially implied.

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