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 performs passive, public-source collection via ipinfo.io, and highlights authorized use. This adequately covers the behavioral traits for a simple lookup tool, though rate limits or data freshness are not mentioned.

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 sentences long, information-dense, and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: function, usage variation, and authorization. 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 low-complexity tool with no output schema, the description explains input parameters and the nature of the data. The json_output parameter covers return format. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, though example usage or expected output structure could be added.

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 has two parameters with 50% description coverage (json_output has a description, ip lacks one). The description adds significant value: it explains the 'ip' parameter can be omitted or set to 'me' for auto-detection, and clarifies the purpose (geolocation and ASN data). This compensates for the missing schema description.

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 retrieves geolocation and ASN data for an IP address using ipinfo.io. It also specifies the optional auto-detect feature. This is distinct from sibling tools which target emails, usernames, domains, etc., providing clear differentiation.

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 includes authorization requirements ('Authorized use only: your own assets or a target you are authorized to assess') and notes that omitting 'ip' or passing 'me' auto-detects the caller's IP. While it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, the context of IP lookup versus other search domains makes it clear.

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