ip_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, and lists the output fields and IPv4/IPv6 support. This adequately communicates the tool's behavior for a simple lookup, though it does not mention error handling or rate limits.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and each word adds value. It lists specific output fields without extraneous filler.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail: what data is returned, supported input types, and clear purpose. It misses nothing critical, though a note about output format could push it to a 5.

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%, with the parameter 'ip' already described as 'IPv4 or IPv6 address to look up'. The description redundantly mentions IPv4/IPv6 support but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('geolocation and network information for an IP address'), and lists concrete data fields (country, city, ISP, ASN, coordinates). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on IP-based geolocation/network details rather than DNS, SSL, WHOIS, or HTTP checks.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve geolocation and network information for an IP address. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous and sufficient for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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