geolocate_ip

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it explains that detection result is prioritized, that unknown detection is possible ('never clean' means it won't falsely claim a clean status), and that coordinates are a centroid, not an exact location. This transparency is excellent.

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 compact yet comprehensive. It packs essential information (output fields, detection logic, limitations) into three sentences, each serving a clear purpose, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the specific data fields returned (country, region, city, postcode, coordinates, timezone, ASN, org, ISP). It also explains the additional detection field and its role, making the tool's behavior fully understandable without further documentation.

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 only parameter, 'ip', is fully described: it accepts public IPv4 or IPv6 addresses and explicitly states that private and reserved ranges are refused. This covers both format and constraints, leaving no ambiguity.

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: locating a public IPv4 or IPv6 address and returning detailed location and network information. It explicitly lists the output fields (country, region, city, etc.), making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 provides practical usage guidance by noting that detection of datacentre/VPN/proxy/Tor is returned first and that this determines the reliability of the location. It also cautions against interpreting IP coordinates as the exact physical location of a person, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when to prefer this tool over others, but the context is sufficient.

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