Locate caller in Singapore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only provides a moderate amount: it discloses the default behavior (public IP) and that it also resolves to an NEA PSI region. It doesn't mention latency, whether it makes network calls, error handling, or what happens if geolocation fails. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the rationale. No waste, though it could be slightly tighter. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a 4-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description gives a basic overview but leaves gaps: it doesn't explain what the return value looks like (coordinates + region name?), nor does it cover error cases or how the ip/lat/lon overrides interact. It's minimally sufficient but not complete.

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%, so the schema already fully documents every parameter (ip, lat, lon, lang) including defaults and enums. The description adds little beyond reiterating the default IP lookup. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: resolve the caller's location (public IP by default) into coordinates and the nearest NEA PSI region. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling weather tools (weather_now, get_haze, etc.) by framing it as the geolocation resolver.

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?

Gives clear context: "Useful to check what the other tools will use before calling them." This tells the agent when to reach for it (as a prelude to other tools). However, it doesn't name specific alternatives or state when not to use it.

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