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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the tool uses Team Cymru DNS and flags high-risk hosting ASNs. This goes beyond the structured hints and informs the agent about output characteristics. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the verb and resource, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the core mapping function, the second lists return fields and a notable output feature. This is an exemplary use of conciseness.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown here), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the core purpose, the data source (Team Cymru DNS), the key output fields, and the high-risk flag. The three parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role and output, though it could briefly mention when to use the optional parameters.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description's mention of output fields does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 maps domain IPs to Autonomous System Numbers via Team Cymru DNS, lists the specific output fields (ASN, prefix, country, registry, organization), and mentions a unique feature (flagging high-risk hosting ASNs). This purpose is distinct from sibling tools like rdap_lookup or check_* tools, which focus on different aspects of domain security.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rdap_lookup or osint_investigate_infrastructure_start. It lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information, leaving the agent to infer context solely from the purpose statement.

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