wireshark_geoip_enrich

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that by calling it an 'enrichment' operation. It adds value by disclosing the dependency on an external database (GeoLite2 DB), which is beyond the 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 extremely concise with a single sentence that front-loads the category '[Enrichment]' and includes essential details. No superfluous information.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and a key dependency, but lacks parameter explanations and output specifications. For a tool with no output schema, the description should provide more context about the enrichment results.

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 0%, but the description fails to explain the two parameters (pcap_file, limit). The tool's purpose implies pcap_file is input and limit controls IP count, but no explicit guidance is given, leaving the agent to infer meaning.

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 performs GeoIP enrichment for unique IPs, providing country, city, ASN. It specifies the need for a GeoLite2 DB, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like extraction or analysis tools.

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 explicitly mentions the prerequisite of a GeoLite2 DB, which guides when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives among the many sibling tools, slightly reducing guidance completeness.

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