IP Geolocation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the read-only nature of the lookup and the data returned, which is transparent for a simple geolocation tool. However, it does not disclose any potential error behavior, data source limitations, or latency expectations. With no annotations, this is adequate but not rich; it meets the minimum viable level.

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 two sentences: the first announces the action and expected outputs, the second gives a direct usage trigger. There is no redundant information, and it is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete: it lists the returned data categories and states when to use it. It does not explicitly mention error handling or response format, but those are not critical for a straightforward lookup. Minor gaps exist, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 100% for the single parameter 'ip', and its description ('IPv4 or IPv6 address, e.g. 8.8.8.8') is clear. The tool description also mentions IPv4/IPv6, but it does not add new semantic details beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents the parameter well, the description does not need to compensate, so a baseline of 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 function with a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('geographic location of an IPv4 or IPv6 address'), and lists the output fields (country, region, city, coordinates, timezone, ASN, network operator). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bulk_geolocate or whois_lookup by focusing on a single-IP lookup with specific data points.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when the user asks where an IP address is located or who operates it.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use alternatives, but the context is clear enough given the tool's simplicity and sibling set. This is a clear context without explicit exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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