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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context about matching scope (across all five RIRs, on registered AS name and holder description) and that it returns candidate ASNs with holder descriptions. 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 front-loaded with example intents, then the core function, then the relationship to siblings, and finally the matching scope. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but every sentence contributes value. No fluff.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage context, return content, and scope. It does not detail pagination or error handling, but that is not critical for a lookup tool. It is sufficiently complete for 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 100% and the parameter description is clear ('Organisation or network name to search for'). The description adds example queries but does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already conveys. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific action (resolve an organisation/network name to AS numbers and prefixes) and clearly differentiates itself from siblings by naming as_overview, ripestat_announced_prefixes, and asn_neighbours as follow-ups. The example queries make the intended use immediately obvious.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: when you only know the company name, and positions it as the lookup step before other ASN tools. This gives the agent clear guidance on when to select it over alternatives.

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