peerglass_geo_lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: external dependency on the MaxMind DB file, specific return fields (city, coordinates, EU membership), and data freshness limitations ('when available'). No contradiction 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?

Uses structured docstring format (Args/Returns) that is front-loaded with purpose. While slightly verbose due to boilerplate, every section provides necessary information given the lack of schema descriptions. No filler content.

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?

Covers the critical deployment requirement (env var path) that annotations cannot express. Since output schema exists, the return value description is supplementary but helpful for understanding semantic content. Could mention error cases (invalid IP, missing DB file) for completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full documentation burden. It clearly documents both nested parameters: 'ip' as IPv4/IPv6 and 'response_format' with valid options and default ('markdown'). This compensates perfectly for the sparse schema.

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 opening sentence 'Look up the geographic location of an IP address using MaxMind GeoLite2' provides a specific verb, resource, target, and data source. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like peerglass_dns_resolve (DNS) or rir_query_ip (RIR registration data).

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 critical operational context (requires PEERGLASS_GEOIP_DB environment variable) and output format options, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance comparing it to similar IP lookup siblings like rir_query_ip or peerglass_passive_dns.

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