maps_ip_location

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the approximate nature of the result ('大致范围') and the output type (city), which is basic but useful. It does not mention possible precision limits, response format, or handling of invalid IPs.

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 one short, focused sentence that front-loads the action and output. Every word earns its place, and nothing is redundant.

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 single-parameter, low-complexity tool, the description adequately states what the agent needs to know: what to pass (IP) and what to expect (city and approximate range). There is no output schema, but the description names the return concept clearly enough.

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 fully describes the single 'ip' parameter as an IPv4 address (100% coverage). The description adds no new semantic detail beyond confirming that the IP is the subject of the lookup.

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 ('查询') and clearly identifies the resource ('IP地址') and output ('所在城市及大致范围'). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like maps_geo or maps_regeocode, which handle different location lookups.

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 usage context is implied: call this tool when you have an IP address and need a city-level location. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as maps_geo for coordinate-based lookups.

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