locate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (PeeringDB), the routing-only approach, and the top-prefix derivation for ASNs. It does not mention failure modes, empty-result behavior, or explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the core behavior is reasonably transparent.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It opens with the core mechanism, then adds a rationale and input instructions. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description defines the conceptual output ('cities common to all upstreams' PeeringDB presence') and the input handling. It omits output format and edge-case behavior, but for a simple analytic lookup it is nearly complete.

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 role of both parameters: a prefix directly, and an ASN via its top prefix. However, it does not clarify expected formats, mutual exclusivity, or what happens when both/neither parameter is provided, leaving clear gaps.

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 operation: 'Finds cities common to all upstreams' PeeringDB presence' and labels it 'routing-only geolocation'. It is specific about the resource and method, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as identify or origin_history, so it misses the top 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?

It gives input guidance ('Give a prefix (or an ASN, whose top prefix is used to derive upstreams)') and a context cue ('far more reliable than GeoIP for leased/anycast space'). However, it does not state when to prefer locate over sibling tools or when not to use it, leaving the usage conditions partly implied.

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