geoip_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the lookup is executed on the device (an external dependency that can fail if the device is unreachable) and names the return content, but it says nothing about behavior for private/unresolvable IPs, error modes, or whether results are cached.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence. The Parameters section is redundant against a fully documented schema, but the Returns section earns its place because no output schema exists.

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 3-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, and a rough sketch of return values. Minor gaps remain around prerequisites (device reachability, FortiGuard registration) and behavior for unresolvable addresses.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The Parameters section in the description merely restates those descriptions without adding format, syntax, or VDOM-selection guidance beyond the schema.

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: resolve an IP to FortiGuard geolocation (country) via the FortiGate device. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ping_from_device or lookup_route, though it does not explicitly name what it is not.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it needs the country for an IP address. There is no statement of when to prefer it over alternatives (e.g., list_arp_table, lookup_route) and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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