search_ip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is passive and uses public-source collection, which implies no destructive behavior. However, it does not mention rate limits, quotas, error handling, or specific authentication requirements beyond the service itself. The auto-detection feature is explained, but additional behavioral details would improve transparency.

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 three concise sentences, each adding distinct information: main purpose, special usage for auto-detection, and authorized use. No redundant words, and the critical details are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential aspects: functionality, usage pattern, and ethics. It mentions the data source (ipinfo.io). However, it does not specify the default return format when json_output is false, or any error conditions. Still, it is largely complete for a basic lookup tool.

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 50% (only json_output has a description). The description adds meaningful explanation for the 'ip' parameter: 'Omit 'ip' (or pass 'me') to auto-detect the caller's own public IP.' This compensates for the missing schema description. For json_output, the schema already describes it, making the description valuable for the less-documented parameter.

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 that the tool retrieves geolocation and ASN data for an IP address via ipinfo.io, and it distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the data source and behavior. It also explains the special case of omitting 'ip' or passing 'me' to auto-detect the caller's IP, which differentiates it from other IP lookup tools.

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 explicit ethical guidance: 'Authorized use only: your own assets or a target you are authorized to assess.' It also characterizes the tool as passive and public-source, implying it is safe for reconnaissance. However, it does not directly compare to similar sibling tools like search_ip2location, but the context of authorized use is clear.

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