IP Geolocation Lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by detailing the response data categories (location, network/ASN, currency, optional modules), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 consists of two clear, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient for an AI agent 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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, 1 required) and high schema coverage, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and returns. It lists the main data categories and optional modules, though it could briefly note the response structure since no output schema is provided.

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%, and the description restates the required 'ip' field and the optional 'include' field. It does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying dot-path syntax for 'fields' and 'excludes'. Baseline 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 action ('look up'), the resource ('geolocation data'), and the accepted inputs (IP address, IPv6, hostname). It distinguishes from sibling tools like dns_lookup or ssl_live_lookup by specifying the data returned (location, network/ASN, currency, etc.).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., ipgeolocation_bulk_lookup for multiple IPs) or when not to use it. No usage context or exclusions are provided beyond the default behavior.

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