get_asn_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'Get information' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or error handling. While it implies a safe read operation, it lacks details on permissions, data freshness, or response structure beyond a vague mention of return types.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by separate 'Args' and 'Returns' sections that organize information efficiently. There is no redundant or verbose language, making it easy to parse. A slight deduction because the 'Returns' section could be more specific, but overall it's front-loaded and 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter format but lacks usage guidelines and detailed behavioral context. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values in depth, but it should still address when to use this tool over siblings and operational constraints.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It specifies that the 'asn' parameter is 'The ASN number (without 'AS' prefix)', which clarifies formatting not evident from the schema's integer type alone. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this addition is basic. It doesn't explain validation rules, example values, or edge cases, keeping it at the baseline for low 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's purpose: 'Get information about an Autonomous System Number (ASN).' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('ASN information'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'whois_lookup_by_asn' or 'get_ip_org', which might offer overlapping or related functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools such as 'whois_lookup_by_asn', 'get_ip_org', and 'get_ip_ranges' that might retrieve similar or related network data, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear usage cues.

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