geojs_lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful substance in listing the returned fields and the self-lookup fallback, but says nothing about rate limits, error/failed-lookup behavior, or accuracy limits of GeoJS.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action and the return fields front-loaded, and the omitted-parameter case handled second. No waste, though it is prose rather than structured and does not take advantage of the space saved to add differentiation.

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 one-parameter read-only utility with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the source, the fields returned, and the default behavior. Only the absence of disambiguation from similar siblings and of failure-mode notes leaves a minor gap.

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?

There is a single optional parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully; the description merely restates the default ('Omit IP for self-lookup'). Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 and resource ('Get IP geolocation') and lists the fields returned (country, region, city, lat/lon), so the agent knows exactly what it yields. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many sibling IP-lookup tools in the catalog (ipinfo_lookup, ip_lookup, ip_address_lookup, country_by_ip, ipify_get_ip), which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

'Omit IP for self-lookup' is a usable cue for the optional-parameter case, but it is a parameter hint rather than when-to-use guidance. With several near-identical IP lookup siblings, the agent gets no direction on when to prefer geojs_lookup over ipinfo_lookup or country_by_ip.

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