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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only lists output categories. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, handles errors, or how it behaves with invalid ASNs. This is a significant gap for a network lookup tool.

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 sentence with no filler, making it compact. The key information is front-loaded with 'PeeringDB Net' followed by the data categories. However, it reads more like a title than a standalone description, and could be more informative without sacrificing 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?

For a tool with one optional parameter, no annotations, and zero schema coverage, the description is too sparse to enable correct use. It fails to specify the input mapping (q=ASN), any error handling, or expected output structure. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing input semantics.

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 'q' parameter has zero schema coverage, and the description only indirectly implies it holds an ASN via 'for ASN'. It does not specify the expected format (e.g., plain number vs 'AS' prefix) or whether it accepts search strings. The description adds minimal meaning but does not fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 names the resource (PeeringDB Net) and the data categories it returns (peering policy, traffic, IX presence) for an ASN, which distinguishes it from generic ASN tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not state that the 'q' parameter is the ASN, leaving some ambiguity. Still, it is specific enough to infer the tool's function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'peeringdb' or 'asn'. There is no mention of prerequisites, complementary tools, or situations where this tool is preferred. An agent would have no way to decide between this and sibling tools.

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