ip_get_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: the external dependency ('Powered by ip-api.com'), the limitation on private IPs, the automatic use of server IP when omitted, and the token requirement for extended data. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but the core behavior is well-covered.

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 six sentences long, with each sentence adding new information: purpose, fallback behavior, return data, extended data, limitation, and external service. The main purpose is front-loaded, and there is no redundant repetition of schema text. Very concise and well-structured.

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 tool with no output schema, the description does a good job of conveying expected results: it lists return data categories (country, region, city, coordinates, timezone, ISP, organization) and extended fields. It also covers setup requirements (HTTPS, token) and limitations (private IPs). Minor gaps include lack of error response or rate limit information, but for a straightforward lookup, it is largely 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 schema provides 100% coverage of the three parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: includeExtendedData specifically yields ASN/mobile/proxy detection and requires a token; useHttps is required for paid tier; ipAddress omission uses the current IP. This enriches the bare schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Retrieves detailed geolocation and network information for a public IP address.' It also specifies the optional behavior when no IP is provided. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool campaign_get_details, which is unrelated in domain.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: it describes the automatic fallback to the server's IP, notes the need for an API token for extended data, and mentions the HTTPS requirement for paid tier. It also explicitly states a limitation: 'Cannot lookup private IPs.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, though the sibling domain is distinctly different.

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