Get Referring Subnets Count

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error handling, data freshness, or behavior for invalid targets. The only behavioral hint is 'unique subnets/C-blocks', but overall transparency is very low.

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?

A single sentence that is efficient and front-loads the purpose. While concise, it could include additional contextual hints without losing brevity, but currently it wastes no 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?

The tool is simple with few parameters, so completeness is less critical. However, no output schema is provided and the description does not hint at the return format (e.g., integer count, object). Basic completeness for a trivial tool, but could be more explicit.

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 50% (target has description, mode does not but enum values clarify). The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides reasonable clarity.

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 returns the number of unique subnets/C-blocks linking to a target, distinguishing it from sibling count tools like DATA_getBacklinksCount or DATA_getRefDomainsCount by specifying the resource type (subnets/C-blocks).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as DATA_getRefDomainsCount or DATA_getBacklinksRefDomains. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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