rir_check_irr

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable domain context: it explains what IRR is, warns about consequences of missing objects (route filtering), and describes the return value structure ('Route objects per IRR source, consistency status'). No contradictions with annotations.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The IRR explanation paragraph provides necessary domain context. The Args/Returns sections use a standard docstring format that efficiently documents inputs and outputs without verbosity, though they duplicate some schema information.

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 tool's medium complexity (external registry lookup), the description is comprehensive: it covers domain concepts, input requirements, output summary, and safety profile (via annotations). It adequately prepares an agent to select and invoke the tool without overwhelming detail.

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 schema description coverage reported at 0%, the Args section compensates effectively by documenting all three parameters (prefix, asn, response_format) with types and examples. It adds the 'Expected origin' semantic to the ASN parameter, clarifying its validation purpose.

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 immediately states the specific action ('Check IRRExplorer') and resource ('route objects'), explaining that it verifies consistency 'with the claimed origin ASN.' It distinguishes from siblings by specifying IRR (vs RPKI) and explaining what IRR objects are for, ensuring clear differentiation from tools like rir_check_rpki.

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 explains the operational context ('Inconsistent or missing route objects can cause route filtering and reachability issues') and implies when to use it (troubleshooting reachability). It references RPKI ('even when RPKI is valid'), implicitly distinguishing from rir_check_rpki, though it could explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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