rir_get_announced_prefixes

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

Adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: cites RIPE Stat as data source, discloses 5-minute cache, explains min_peers_seeing filters 'unstable/flapping routes' (semantic meaning beyond schema), and documents the complete return structure including peer visibility and timestamps.

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?

Well-structured with clear visual hierarchy: one-line summary → scope elaboration → bulleted use cases → Args/Returns documentation. Front-loaded with the core action. Slightly verbose but every section earns its place by providing distinct value (use cases vs technical specs).

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 moderate complexity and existing safety annotations (readOnly, non-destructive), the description is complete: covers data source, freshness/caching, input semantics, and detailed output schema with JSON structure. No gaps remain for agent invocation.

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?

While input schema describes the two parameters (asn, min_peers_seeing), the description adds critical semantic context: explains min_peers_seeing controls route stability ('Higher = more stable routes only') and provides ASN format examples ('AS13335' or '15169'). Also documents the return structure not present in input 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?

Opens with specific verb 'Retrieve' + resource 'IP prefixes' + scope 'currently being announced by an ASN in BGP'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like rir_prefix_history (historical) and rir_check_bgp_status (status check) by emphasizing 'complete routing footprint' and 'currently'.

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 four concrete use cases (IP footprint, hijack detection, M&A diligence, threat intel) and explains the min_peers_seeing filter purpose. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named alternatives, though 'currently' implies distinction from historical tools.

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