rir_query_asn

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

Annotations indicate read-only/idempotent/safe operation, while the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: it discloses the 1-hour caching policy, explains the simultaneous querying of all 5 RIRs (vs single source), and provides a complete JSON output schema showing the exact structure of normalized results and per-RIR responses.

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 and front-loaded: one-line summary followed by domain context, input format examples, caching note, Args block, and Returns block. The inclusion of the JSON output schema is justified for an agent needing to parse structured responses. Minor verbosity in the ASN explanation is acceptable for clarity.

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 complexity (multi-source aggregation across 5 RIRs) and rich output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers function, input semantics, output structure with schema, caching behavior, and provides concrete examples. The presence of output schema documentation in the description satisfies completeness despite the lack of a formal outputSchema field.

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 (the 'params' property lacks a description field), the description compensates effectively via the Args section documenting both nested parameters (asn and response_format), including valid format examples and enum values ('markdown' or 'json'). It clarifies the nested ASNQueryInput structure that the schema references via $ref.

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 opens with the specific action 'Query all 5 global RIRs simultaneously for an Autonomous System Number' - clear verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling rir_query_ip by explicitly focusing on ASN (Autonomous System Number) rather than IP addresses, and explains what an ASN is with concrete examples (AS15169 = Google).

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 provides implicit guidance through examples of accepted input formats ('AS15169', '15169', or named sets like 'AS-GOOGLE'), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance compared to siblings. It does not clarify when to use this versus rir_query_ip or rir_as_relationships, nor does it mention prerequisites or rate limits.

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