Generate IP Map URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the structure of the returned MapResult (url, mapped_ip_count, skipped_ips, etc.), how skipped_ips are capped at 100, the meaning of truncated, and error handling with ToolError. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise (two paragraphs) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value, explaining the return value and error behavior. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient.

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 low complexity (one parameter, rich annotations, output schema present), the description is complete. It explains the return structure, handling of filtered IPs, and error reporting. No missing information is needed for proper use.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter (ips), with a clear description and examples. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 tool's purpose: 'Build an interactive ipinfo.io map for a set of IPs.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like ipinfo_lookup_ips and ipinfo_summarize_ips.

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 mapping IPs but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No examples of use cases or exclusions are given.

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