ip

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds useful context that 'deep' returns datacenter, relay, and tor flags, going beyond the schema's generic 'richer fields.' It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but the read-only safety is already established.

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 a single, concise sentence front-loaded with the action. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and the deep parameter's effect, with no redundancy.

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 2-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and key returned fields. The large sibling tool list is not addressed, but the tool's simplicity makes this less critical. Could mention invalid IP handling, but it's adequate as-is.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaning by naming specific fields returned by 'deep' (datacenter, relay, tor) and listing top-level outputs, enriching the semantic value 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Look up') and identifies the resource (IPv4/IPv6 address) with key output fields (country, region, ASN, timezone). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling 'ip_self' but the generic phrasing conveys looking up an arbitrary address.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like ip_self, state, or city. It doesn't mention exclusions or recommend alternative tools for related use cases, leaving the choice to inference.

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