map_ips

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions creating a 'visual map' and returning a 'Map report with visualization URL,' which implies a read-only operation with visual output. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits (e.g., handling up to 500,000 IPs), error handling, or whether the map is interactive or static. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to fully inform the agent.

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 well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second details the parameter, and the third specifies the output. There is no wasted text, 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 has an output schema (which should cover return values), the description does not need to explain returns in detail. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it partially compensates by clarifying the parameter. For a tool that creates visualizations, it lacks context on map types, formats, or integration hints, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context: the 'ips' parameter is described as a 'List of IP addresses to map (up to 500,000),' clarifying the data type, purpose, and a practical limit. This goes beyond the basic schema, providing essential usage semantics that the schema alone does not cover.

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: 'Create a visual map of IP address locations.' It specifies the verb ('Create'), resource ('visual map'), and scope ('IP address locations'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ip_location' or 'summarize_ips', which might offer similar or overlapping functionality, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_ip_location' (which might return location data without visualization) and 'summarize_ips' (which could aggregate IP data), there is no explicit or implied context for choosing this tool over others. This lack of differentiation leaves usage unclear.

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