Prefix WhoIs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description need not repeat those. It adds useful behavioral context: that data is 'right now' (current origin state) and that it returns aggregated counts rather than a list. It also mentions the cost, which is not covered by annotations. No contradictions 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 tight and front-loaded: purpose first, then usage guidance, then cost. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or promotional language. It fits in two sentences with no filler.

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 parameter, an output schema (which presumably documents the return fields like name, country, registry, contacts, and prefix counts), and clear sibling differentiation, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and its cost. Nothing essential is missing 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?

The schema fully documents the single 'asn' parameter with a description, examples, and type/range constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline 3 applies 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 clearly states the tool profiles an AS by returning registered organization details (name, country, registry, contacts) and current IPv4/IPv6 prefix counts. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting what it does not provide ('use pwhois_asn_prefixes for the prefix list, pwhois_asn_transit for prefixes it carries'), so the agent can select it correctly without ambiguity.

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 gives explicit usage direction: 'Use this for a quick profile' and then names the alternative tools and the conditions for choosing them. It also notes the query cost ('Costs 1 query'), which is relevant for quota management. This leaves no doubt about when to use this tool versus its siblings.

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

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses that large networks are truncated at 2,000 rows per family and that each family costs one query. These are important behavioral traits not covered by 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 efficient sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with usage alternatives and constraints. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 output schema exists, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, usage distinctions, truncation behavior, and query cost. An agent has everything needed to decide when and how to call 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?

The schema covers asn with a clear description and examples, while the family parameter lacks a schema description. The tool description compensates by explaining 'family: v4, v6 or both (default both)', fully clarifying the enum and default. This adds value beyond the structured 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 returns every prefix announced with the given AS as origin, including AS path and first-seen time. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming the transit and count alternatives, so an agent can immediately tell what it does and what it is not.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: use pwhois_asn_transit for transit prefixes and pwhois_asn_info for counts without the list. It also states the default family behavior and truncation limit, so an agent knows exactly when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: it clarifies the semantic of 'transit' (AS path passes through), the truncation limit, and the query cost. No contradictions 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, differentiation, and constraints. No filler.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, how it differs from a sibling, operational limits, and cost. Nothing critical is missing.

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 schema already fully describes the asn parameter (integer, range, examples, format). The description does not add further parameter-specific guidance, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high 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 precise verb-resource pair: it lists prefixes whose AS path passes through the given AS, i.e., the customer cone. It also immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling pwhois_asn_prefixes by clarifying 'Transited, not originated', making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly provides a usage alternative: for originated prefixes it directs to pwhois_asn_prefixes. It also notes practical constraints (2,000-row truncation, cost of 1 query), giving the agent clear conditions on when this tool is appropriate and what to expect.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds valuable behavioral context by stating that data comes from the 'live global routing table plus registry data' and that the operation costs 1 query, which is important for quota management.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first sentence states the core function and output, the second routes to the right sibling, and the third explains the optional parameter and cost. The most important scoping info 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 single-IP enrichment tool, this description is complete: it covers query semantics, optional behavior, cost, output categories, and clear alternatives. The presence of an output schema and annotations means the description does not need to restate return structure or safety hints.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both ip and registry parameters. The description adds a small clarifying note about registry=true returning abuse/admin contacts, but this largely overlaps with the schema's 'address, contacts' description; it does not significantly change 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 starts with a concrete, specific question ('Who announces this address right now') and lists the key resources returned: origin AS, most-specific prefix, AS path, network and organization names, country, and location. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming alternatives with their different scopes.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: use pwhois_lookup_ips for multiple addresses, pwhois_prefix_routes for a CIDR block, and pwhois_asn_info for an AS. It also tells the agent when to set registry=true, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool should be selected over siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, and the description adds complementary behavioral details without contradicting them: per-address query cost, mixed IPv4/IPv6 support, the 10-hostname limit, and the difference between full and summary result granularity. The quota warning is especially useful for agents planning large batches.

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 compact but information-dense; every clause adds either a capability, limit, or operational instruction. It opens with the primary use case and then layers constraints in a logical order: modes, limits, sibling preference, type support, hostname cap, and cost. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

The tool's complexity is moderate, but the description covers all agent-facing operational constraints: max batch sizes, default mode, chunking strategy, mixed address types, hostname cap, and cost/quota. An output schema exists, so return-structure details are not the description's job. This description gives enough context to call the tool safely and efficiently.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining the AS/country clustering behavior, the semantic difference between full and summary results, mixed-address support, and the billing/cost model. It does not exhaustively explain every result field, but the output schema already covers structure, so 4 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Batch enrichment in one call' and immediately specifies the resource (many addresses) and the enrichment dimensions (origin AS, country, per-address records). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling pwhois_lookup_ip by explicitly recommending this batched variant over repeated calls.

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 tells the agent when to prefer this tool ('Always prefer this over repeated pwhois_lookup_ip calls') and explains the two detail modes with concrete batch limits. It also gives operational guidance for large workloads: chunking ('call again with the next chunk'), the hostname cap, and checking pwhois_my_quota before large batches.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining the breakdown of usage (direct and through this connection), reset timing, and that it is free. No contradiction exists.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the essential information with no waste. The main purpose is front-loaded and the usage hint is separate and actionable.

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 zero-input quota tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to decide when to call it and what it will get back. It is complete.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is fully adequate.

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 defines the tool as reporting the user's daily allowance, including limit, usage, remaining amount, and reset time. This is a specific resource and purpose, and it is obviously distinct from sibling lookup/registry tools.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this before large batches.' It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but none are relevant for a quota-checking tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds the cost of 1 query and summarizes the output (AS numbers and prefixes), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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?

Three concise sentences: the first states purpose and output, the second gives usage guidance, the third notes cost. Every sentence earns its place, and the key functionality 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?

With a single parameter, full schema coverage, output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description adds just enough operational detail (cost, usage routing) to make the tool fully usable without missing critical context.

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 fully documents the 'name' parameter with description, constraints, and examples (100% coverage). The main description repeats the case-insensitive behavior already in the schema, adding no new semantic value beyond that.

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 a specific action (find organizations by name substring) and the returned data (AS numbers and announced prefixes). It distinguishes itself from siblings like pwhois_registry_record by focusing on name-based search versus record retrieval by ID.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use this tool: to find an organization from its name, and directs the agent to pwhois_registry_record once an org ID or other handle is obtained. This gives clear routing among sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful context by noting the data scope ('global table', 'active routes'), the best-route-versus-all-routes behavior, and the query cost ('Costs 1 query'). No contradiction exists.

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?

Three tight sentences deliver purpose, scope, output details, alternative tools, and cost with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded before the routing guidance.

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?

The description is complete for this tool's complexity: it explains what the tool does, when to choose it, what distinguishes it from siblings, and its cost. An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required here.

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%, so the schema fully documents both 'prefix' and 'all'. The description references the 'all' behavior ('when asked, every route-server view') but does not substantially add semantics beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. This matches the baseline for full 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 and resource: retrieving active routes in the global table for a CIDR prefix, including origin AS and AS path. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from pwhois_lookup_ip and pwhois_asn_prefixes, making sibling differentiation immediate.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use this tool when you have a CIDR block. It names the alternatives for single addresses and for an AS's full prefix set, so an agent can route correctly without extra reasoning.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safe read-only, idempotent, open-world nature of the call. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the exact return contents (address, dates, handles) and the one-query cost. This is enough given the lower burden placed on the description.

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 compact and information-dense: it states the resource, the three key types, the return fields, the mutual-exclusion rule, the relevant sibling alternatives, and the query cost with no filler. Each sentence earns its place.

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 look-up tool with fully documented schema, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly: keys, return values, exclusions, and cost. Nothing material is missing.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with examples and descriptions, and its top-level description states 'Give exactly one of org_id, asn or poc_handle.' The tool description slightly reinforces this mutual-exclusion constraint but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as returning the registry record on file, keyed by org ID, AS number, or POC handle, and lists the returned fields (address, registration dates, contact handles). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by giving the conditions under which pwhois_org_search and pwhois_lookup_ip should be used instead.

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 states when to use the tool and explicitly routes to alternatives: use pwhois_org_search to find an org from a name and pwhois_lookup_ip with registry=true for the org behind an IP. It also gives the constraint 'Give exactly one key.'

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is free, and it discloses exactly what information is returned (table sizes, peer count, last refresh). No contradictions 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core information. Every word contributes value, and it avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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 parameterless, read-only status tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It clearly states what data is provided, and there are no missing details that an agent would need to call 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers all that is needed. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies because no parameter information is required.

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 clear purpose: reporting routing table statistics (size of IPv4 and IPv6 tables, peer count, last refresh time). It is specific about the resource and the metrics, and it is distinct from sibling tools like pwhois_prefix_routes or pwhois_asn_info which focus on different data. The verb is implicit but obvious for a status query.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The usage is implied by the nature of the tool (a status check), but no guidance is given on when to choose it over siblings. This is adequate but lacks explicit direction.

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