get_internet_exchange

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response includes 'available peers,' which adds some behavioral context. However, it does not describe other return fields, any side effects, or whether the tool requires authentication. The mention of peers is a modest but non-trivial addition.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without any wasted words or repetition.

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 description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema. However, it could be more specific about what 'full detail' includes (beyond peers) or mention pagination or availability. Given the lack of output schema, additional hints about return structure would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema covers the only parameter 'id' with a description. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, which already states 'Internet exchange ID.' With 100% schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly specifies the action ('Get full detail') and the resource ('internet exchange point'), and includes the notable output component ('including available peers'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_internet_exchanges, which likely return summaries, and search_peeringdb, which is broader.

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 alternatives (e.g., list_internet_exchanges for a list, or other detail tools). No prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions are mentioned.

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