geo_ip

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool rejects private/reserved ranges and lists return fields, but does not mention rate limits, authentication, or other potential errors.

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 two sentences: the first states the overall purpose, the second details the parameter and its constraints. Every sentence contributes value, and it is concise.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description coveres purpose, parameter constraints, and return fields. It lacks details on error handling for malformed IPs, but overall is complete 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?

Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter description), so the description adds essential meaning: the IP must be a public IPv4 or IPv6 address, and private/reserved ranges are rejected. This compensates well for the lack of schema documentation.

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 tool locates an IP address geographically and returns country, city, ASN, and ISP. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve_dns, reverse_dns, and whois_domain which perform different network 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 description explains what the tool returns and that private/reserved IP ranges are rejected. It implies usage for public IPs needing geographic info, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative recommendations.

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