Bulk IP Lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the batch size limit (max 100) and listing the output data fields. It also credits the data source (ipapi.is). No contradictions.

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 a single, appropriately-sized sentence (23 words) that front-loads the core action. Every word adds value, making it concise and clear.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, safe read operation, explicit annotations, and an output schema), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, limits, output fields, and data source, leaving no major gaps for an agent to infer.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, describing the 'ips' parameter as an array of IPv4/IPv6 addresses with min/max constraints. The tool description does not add new information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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: looking up multiple IP addresses in one call with a max of 100, and lists the returned data fields (country, city, VPN/Tor/proxy flags, ASN, organization). It distinguishes from the sibling tool ip.intelligence.lookup by explicitly mentioning 'bulk' and 'multiple IP addresses'.

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 implies the usage context: when you need to look up multiple IPs in a single request. It does not explicitly state when to use the single-lookup sibling, but the name and description make the distinction clear. Including an explicit alternative would improve it, but it's still effective.

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