ip_locate

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

With no annotations, description provides valuable behavioral context: cost ($0.01/call), free tier (50/50 today), and API endpoint. This helps the agent understand cost implications and authorization. However, it doesn't detail response behavior or rate limits beyond the free tier.

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?

Description is short (two lines) and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value: utility label, query action, pricing, API. Could be slightly more concise without the API URL, but overall efficient.

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 provides cost and API link but omits what the response contains (e.g., location fields). While the tool is straightforward, the agent might need to know return format for further use.

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 covers 100% of parameters, describing 'ip' as 'IP地址'. Description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema already handles parameter 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?

Description clearly states 'IP定位查询' (IP location query) as a utility. The verb ('查询') and resource ('IP') are explicit, and the tool name matches the purpose. No sibling tool directly performs IP location, so differentiation is not needed.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Description only states the function and pricing, with no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given numerous sibling tools, usage context is missing.

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