geolocate_ip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the exact fields returned, which is essential since there is no output schema. It does not mention potential errors or rate limits, but for a simple lookup tool, the description plus annotation is adequate. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It lists the return fields concisely without extraneous words. Every part earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 (one parameter, high schema coverage, readOnlyHint annotation), the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose and the return fields. It lacks explicit mention of limitations (e.g., accuracy, private IP handling), but these are not critical for basic usage. The presence of an output schema is not required, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned data.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'ip' already described as 'IPv4 or IPv6 address (e.g., "8.8.8.8")'. The description adds no additional semantics about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate. There is no need for the description to repeat schema information.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('geolocation data for an IP address'). It lists the returned fields (country, city, region, coordinates, timezone, ISP, organization), making it clear what the tool does and distinguishing it from sibling tools like whois_lookup or dns_lookup, which serve different purposes. The purpose is unambiguous and fully aligned with the tool name.

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 versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. While the purpose implies usage for IP location, there is no explicit routing guidance (e.g., 'use for geolocation, not for registration data'). With a large sibling list, some guidance would help, but the tool's niche is distinct enough that a lack of explicit exclusions is not a serious flaw.

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