rir_detect_route_leak

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

Annotations declare read-only/idempotent safety, while the description adds substantial detection methodology context: specific heuristics (distinct origin AS detection, valley-free violation checking), data provenance (RIPE Stat), and return value structure (confidence scores, suspect ASNs). 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?

Excellent docstring structure with clear sections (Args/Returns), front-loaded purpose statement, and zero waste. Bullet points efficiently enumerate detection criteria without verbosity.

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?

Comprehensive for a detection tool: covers input parameters, detection algorithms, and output format (including data types). Given the complexity of BGP analysis and presence of output schema hints in the Returns section, only minor gaps exist (no mention of RIPE Stat data freshness or rate limits).

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 on leaf parameters, the description effectively compensates by documenting both the 'prefix' parameter (with CIDR format example '1.1.1.0/24') and 'response_format' (enumerating valid values and default), adding crucial semantic context missing from the structured schema.

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?

Description specifies the exact action ('Detect'), resource ('BGP route leaks or hijacks'), data source ('RIPE Stat BGP-state data'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like rir_check_bgp_status or rir_prefix_history by focusing specifically on leak/hijack detection via origin ASN and AS-path analysis.

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?

Provides implied usage context by listing specific anomalies it checks for (multiple origin ASNs, AS-path loops), suggesting use when investigating hijacks or valley-free violations. However, lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives from the extensive sibling list.

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