PeerGlass

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

Annotations cover idempotency and safety (idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false). The description adds valuable behavioral context: the specific trigger condition (when withdrawn% exceeds threshold), the alert format (JSON POST), the polling nature (interval_minutes), and the return value semantics (confirmation and count).

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 well-structured with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence conveys essential information; no 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?

Given the moderate complexity (4 parameters, webhook setup) and presence of return value documentation, the description is substantially complete. It could enhance by mentioning the idempotent behavior (already in annotations) or error handling for invalid webhooks, but covers the essential operational contract.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage at the top level and only titles (no descriptions) for threshold_pct and interval_minutes in the nested schema, the Args section in the description carries the full load. It clearly documents all four parameters including their types, purposes, and default values (20% threshold, 5min interval).

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 states the specific action (Register), resource type (country code/ASN/prefix), and mechanism (webhook URL for shutdown monitoring). It distinguishes from siblings like 'peerglass_shutdown_detect' by emphasizing the webhook/alert-based continuous monitoring aspect rather than one-time detection.

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 implies continuous monitoring use cases through the webhook mechanism and threshold trigger, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like 'rir_change_monitor' or 'peerglass_shutdown_detect', nor any prerequisites for the webhook URL.

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