identify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool aggregates multiple datasources in one call, allows filtering via `include`, and notes the current API limitation that whois is unavailable. It does not describe output structure or potential errors, but for a read-only identity lookup the disclosed information is substantial.

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 compact, front-loads the core purpose, and uses every sentence meaningfully. The first sentence establishes what the tool does, the second gives usage context, and the third provides precise parameter guidance with a limitation note. No filler or redundancy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and three optional-looking parameters, the description covers the main requirements: what the tool does, what inputs to give, and what `include` values are valid. Minor gaps include lack of prefix format details and ambiguity about whether both `asn` and `prefix` can be provided together, but the description is still largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains that `asn` and `prefix` are the two identification keys, and provides the valid values for `include` (rdap, rpki, irr, peeringdb), which the schema does not enumerate. It could go further by specifying prefix format or clarifying mutual exclusivity, but it adds real semantic value.

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 opens with a clear question 'Who is this ASN or prefix?' and specifies the exact data sources: Registry, RPKI, IRR, and PeeringDB. It clearly differentiates this as an aggregated identity lookup, and the framing as 'the right first step' separates it from investigation-specific tools like reachability or detections.

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 explicitly says to provide either `asn` or `prefix` and explains the `include` options, giving concrete invocation guidance. It positions the tool as the 'right first step in almost any investigation,' which communicates when to prefer it, though it does not enumerate when not to use it or name direct alternatives.

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