search_ip2location

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the API-key auth requirement (IP2LOCATION_API_KEY), characterizes the operation as passive, and quantifies network footprint ('one request'). It omits failure behavior (e.g., missing key) and response shape specifics, but the auth and passivity disclosures are concrete value beyond the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the capability and return fields, then terse operational notes (env var, passive, one request). Every fragment carries some signal, though the 'Sponsored integration' note is tangential to invocation.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns – and it does, listing geolocation, ISP, ASN, and threat-category flags. Auth, passivity, and request count are also covered. The main gap is parameter format and error handling for a two-parameter tool.

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 only 50%:_output is documented in the schema but ip (the sole required parameter, format unspecified) is not. The description says nothing about the ip parameter's expected format or how json_output affects the result, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (IP intelligence lookup via IP2Location) and enumerates exactly what it returns: geolocation, ISP, ASN, VPN/proxy/Tor/datacenter detection. This distinguishes it from generic siblings like search_ip or search_whois by output content. However, it never names an alternative tool or states the condition that selects it over those siblings.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is mentioned despite heavy sibling overlap (search_abuseipdb, search_virustotal, search_censys, search_ip). The '[passive]' tag hints at a non-intrusive lookup style, but the agent must infer the selection context on its own.

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