relationships

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the inference methodology, CAIDA agreement, the fact that peering is not inferred, the meaning of other_connections, and the dependence on the requested date window. This is unusually transparent about limitations.

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?

Three dense paragraphs, each earning its place: the first defines the result, the second explains inference caveats, and the third distinguishes topology from usage and names the alternative tool. The key definition is front-loaded.

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?

Even with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned, what is excluded, temporal semantics, and where to go for complementary data. An agent has enough context to decide whether to call it and what the results mean.

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 does convey that asn identifies the ASN whose hierarchy is returned and that start/end define the requested date window. It does not specify date formats or defaults, but the parameter names and the window concept cover most of the meaning.

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 defines the tool's output as an ASN's transit hierarchy: upstreams, downstreams, and unknown-neighbor adjacencies. It also explicitly states what the tool is not, since peering is not inferred, which distinguishes it from related topology tools like path_diversity.

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?

It explicitly frames this tool as the transit TOPOLOGY answer and directs agents to path_diversity for observed USAGE. It also warns against presenting other_connections as confirmed peers, giving both a positive selection cue and an important exclusion.

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