cymru_asn

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. Description adds the fact that it flags high-risk hosting ASNs and uses DNS, which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not explicitly mention the IP resolution step or caching behavior.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the tool's purpose and outputs. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary words.

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 rich annotations, 100% parameter coverage, and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose and key behavioral aspects. It could mention the IP resolution step for clarity, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a read-only tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format enum, force_refresh purpose).

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?

Description clearly states the tool maps domain IPs to Autonomous System Numbers via Team Cymru DNS, specifying return values (ASN, prefix, etc.) and behavior (flags high-risk hosting ASNs). This differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on other 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling tools, no mention of trade-offs or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the description alone.

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