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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a cached corpus read with typical <300ms latency, and emphasizes the distinction between claimed and verified sovereignty via the `verified_sovereign` field. This is transparent for a read-only lookup, though it could mention auth or error behavior.

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 well-structured with sections for use cases, inputs, returns, and latency. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains inputs, lists all return fields, notes latency, and gives usage scenarios. It fully equips an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining that `entity` is a domain or ASN in the 'AS####' format, and marks it as path/required. This adds meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema.

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 checks whether a domain or ASN belongs to a known AI company's infrastructure and reports claimed sovereignty. It specifies the resource (domain/ASN) and outcome, distinguishing it from sibling lookups like ghostroute_asn_lookup by adding sovereignty claims.

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 'Use this tool when' bullets with concrete scenarios (identifying AI infrastructure, enriching endpoints before inference). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5, but it gives clear context.

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