hijack_bgp_impact

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that it queries an external DNS interface, which implies a network read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, mention rate limits, or describe potential failure modes. This is adequate but lacks richer detail.

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 and around 40 words, front-loading the core purpose and method. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, data source, and what it reports (ASN, prefix, owner, RPKI/ROA notes). It lacks explicit output format details, but the description is otherwise sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and roughly what it returns.

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% for the single 'domain' parameter, and the schema already explains its meaning. The tool description adds little beyond restating the domain's role in BGP impact assessment, so it does not significantly exceed what structured data already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Assess') and resource ('BGP-level impact of domain hijacking') and names the data source (Team Cymru's DNS interface). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling hijack tools, which focus on dangling records, NS delegation, or other aspects.

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 clear context: it is used for assessing BGP-level impact, focusing on ASN, prefix, and AS owner info. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the context is sufficiently distinct from the many sibling tools.

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