network_bgp_route_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool performs lookups and analysis, but does not mention read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or how inputs like IP/prefix are passed. The reliance on describe_tool for details reduces transparency.

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 brief but contains a redundant 'Menu ID' sentence. The final sentence commands an action, which could be omitted. Overall, it is functional but not maximally concise.

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 lacks critical details on how to specify the primary input (IP address or network prefix). The schema allows additional properties but does not name them, leaving the agent without clear invocation guidance. The tool's complexity demands more context about output or prerequisites.

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% for the single parameter 'worker_id', which is well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, hitting the baseline score.

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 performs BGP route lookups to analyze routing paths, AS-PATH information, and routing policies for any IP address or network prefix. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like DNS or ASN lookups.

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 implies usage for BGP analysis but does not explicitly guide when to use it versus alternatives. It mentions using describe_tool for full guidance, which offloads context but offers no direct exclusions or comparisons.

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