geolocate_ip

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions auto-detection and the data fields but omits critical details such as whether the operation is read-only, any error handling for invalid IPs, rate limits, or external service dependencies. This lack of depth reduces transparency.

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 two sentences long, directly stating the tool's purpose and a key behavioral note about auto-detection. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary wording.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential functionality and auto-detection. However, it lacks details about data sources, accuracy, or privacy implications, leaving the agent with unanswered questions for a geolocation service.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (ip and format) with 100% coverage, including the auto-detection behavior for ip. The description reinforces this but adds minimal new semantic value beyond what the schema provides, meriting the baseline score.

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 that the tool looks up geolocation data for an IP address and lists the types of data returned. It also mentions auto-detection if no IP is provided. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (get_my_ip, reverse_geocode), missing an opportunity to clarify scope.

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 for geolocation lookups and explicitly notes that omitting the IP triggers auto-detection. It provides no when-not-to-use guidance or explicit comparison to siblings, leaving the agent to infer context.

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