search_peeringdb

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only notes that data is 'cached'. It fails to disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error behaviors, or data freshness specifics, which are important for a search tool.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no unnecessary 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?

Without an output schema, the description does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or result structure. While the search functionality is clear, a tool with 6 parameters could benefit from more context on expected outputs.

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 100%, so the input schema already fully documents each parameter's meaning. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond labeling the resource types, achieving the baseline for this dimension.

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 verb 'Search', the resource 'cached PeeringDB data', and explicitly lists the supported resource types (networks, internet-exchanges, facilities, network-ixlans), distinguishing it from sibling tools that target specific resources.

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 mentions 'cached' data implying staleness but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools (e.g., specific get/list tools). Usage context is implied but not directly stated.

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