get_asn_intel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, required permissions, or rate limits. It adds that it returns 'overview' and 'subnet allocations,' which gives some insight into output, but not detail on edge cases or authentication requirements beyond the account_id parameter.

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 sentences with no unnecessary words. The primary action and resource are front-loaded ('Get an overview of an ASN and its subnet allocations'), followed by a concise use-case sentence. Every word 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 simple read tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does (returns an overview and subnet allocations) and when to use it (analyzing suspicious IPs, ASN-level attack involvement). It lacks explicit return format or error handling details, but for a 'get' operation, this is sufficient 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%, so both parameters (asn and account_id) are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or syntax details beyond what the schema provides. The mention of 'overview' and 'subnet allocations' gives context about the return value, not about the parameters themselves. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('overview of an Autonomous System Number (ASN) and its subnet allocations'). It also provides context on the purpose, such as 'understanding the network behind a suspicious IP' and 'assessing whether an entire ASN is involved in attacks,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ip_intel or get_whois.

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 practical guidance on when to use this tool: 'Useful for understanding the network behind a suspicious IP and assessing whether an entire ASN is involved in attacks.' This implies the context (IP investigation, ASN-level threat assessment) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. However, the sibling list includes get_ip_intel and get_whois, so the ASN-specific focus is clear enough.

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