ip_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the informational nature of the tool (parse/analyze and show properties) and even includes a usage limit note ('[PRO — 3 trial uses left]'), which is an additional behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, but this is strongly implied.

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 a single, information-dense sentence. The PRO trial note is extra context but does not bloat the description. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's function and constraints.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description lists the key computed properties (type, class, private/public/loopback/link-local) which gives the agent a clear picture of expected results. It does not specify response format, but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already provides full coverage (100%) with a type and example for the 'ip' parameter. The description adds context about the analysis performed (type, class, etc.) without changing parameter semantics. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Parse and analyze') with a clear resource ('an IP address') and enumerates distinct output properties (type, class, private/public/loopback/link-local). This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like cidr.

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 makes the tool's purpose obvious and implies when to use it (whenever IP address analysis is needed). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though no sibling tool clearly competes with this function.

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