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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only names the topic (upstream/downstream BGP neighbors) but does not mention input requirements, output format, rate limits, or any operational details. The agent is left uninformed about how the tool executes.

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 concise phrase that front-loads the key information. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it is terse enough that some clarity is sacrificed.

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 optional parameter) and the lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of the 'q' parameter or the nature of the output, making it difficult for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 one optional parameter 'q' with a default of empty string and no description. Schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain what 'q' represents (presumably an ASN) or any expected format. There is zero compensation 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 'ASN Peers: Upstream/downstream BGP neighbours' clearly identifies the tool's resource (ASN peers) and the type of data (BGP neighbors). It is specific enough to differentiate from many sibling tools like asn or bgphistory, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as peeringdb, asnlookup, or asnprefixes. The description only states what the tool is, not the conditions for choosing it over other similar tools.

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