cymru_asn

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe/read-only nature is established. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it mentions the use of Team Cymru DNS and the high-risk ASN flagging behavior. 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds value—first states the function, second details output and a special feature. No redundant information or 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?

Given the presence of a complete schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers purpose, output details, and a unique capability, making it complete for the tool's complexity level.

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 all three parameters (domain, format, force_refresh). The description does not elaborate on parameter usage, but since the schema fully documents each parameter, the baseline is 3. It does not add extra meaning, but it also does not need to.

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 core function: 'Map domain IPs to Autonomous System Numbers via Team Cymru DNS.' It also lists specific outputs (ASN, prefix, country, registry, organization) and an added feature (flags high-risk hosting ASNs). This is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on other DNS/security checks.

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 when to use this tool (for ASN lookup) but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives or mention any exclusion conditions. Given the sibling list, no other tool performs ASN mapping, so the context is somewhat clear, but explicit guidance is missing.

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