rir_looking_glass

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

Annotations cover safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent). Description adds valuable behavioral context: geographic distribution of collectors, specific return data format (AS paths with region and BGP community values), and data source (RIPE RIS). 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?

Well-structured with clear Args/Returns sections. Front-loads the critical sibling distinction before diving into parameters. Efficient use of space though docstring format is slightly more verbose than pure prose. No wasted content.

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 coverage for a network diagnostic tool: explains data source (RIPE RIS), geographic scope (worldwide collectors), output format (markdown/json), and return value structure (AS paths with metadata). Adequate for tool complexity despite no output schema being provided in the description section.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage (only titles/types). Description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters with clear semantics: prefix includes CIDR example, vantage_points explains 'max entries' semantics with default/max values, response_format lists allowed values. Exceptional compensation for sparse 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?

Excellent specificity: describes exact action (show BGP routing table entries/AS paths), specific resource (RIPE RIS collectors), and explicitly distinguishes from siblings ('Unlike BGP visibility...'). Clear value proposition.

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 clear conceptual guidance contrasting with BGP visibility tools (existence vs. AS paths). Explains the 'how' vs 'whether' distinction effectively. Does not explicitly name the alternative sibling tool (rir_check_bgp_status) to use instead, but the conceptual differentiation is strong.

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