ip_geo

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses rate limits (20 calls/day/IP, 100/day with env var) and the need for an environment variable. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what errors may occur (e.g., invalid domain), or any side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise: one sentence for the main action and a parenthetical for rate limits. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate lines), but effective.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the return types (geolocation, ASN/ISP, hosting org). It lacks specific field names or error handling details, but for a simple lookup tool with one parameter, it is sufficiently 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?

The only parameter 'domain' is described in the schema as 'The domain to analyze'. The description adds value by explaining what will be computed from this domain (IP resolution, geolocation, ASN/ISP, hosting org), going beyond the schema's simple label.

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 verb 'Resolve' and the resource 'domain/host to its IP', and lists specific return data (geolocation, ASN/ISP, hosting org). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dns_lookup (which likely only returns IP) and domain_intel (which may focus on domain registration).

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 implies usage when IP geolocation or ASN/ISP info is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use it. Moderate guidance.

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