Bgp Asn

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, only indicating the data scope (ASN details and announced prefixes). It does not mention rate limits, data freshness, or response size, but the annotations carry the main burden.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the resource and data scope. It earns its place with no filler, though it could add a usage hint without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the missing input format guidance and lack of differentiation from bgp_ip leave a moderate gap for an agent selecting among many network siblings.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'asn' parameter format (e.g., plain integer, 'AS123' notation, or with 'AS' prefix). With only one required parameter and no schema description, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the agent uncertain about valid input formatting.

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 'ASN details and announced IPv4/IPv6 prefixes' states a clear resource (ASN) and what it returns (details and prefixes), but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool bgp_ip, which likely handles IP-to-ASN lookups. The verb is implicit ('get'/'lookup'), so it is clear but not maximally specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus bgp_ip or other network lookup siblings. The description implies a lookup use case but does not state exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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