asn_enrich_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details the return structure (total events, top ports, etc.) and states the input format requirements (ISO-8601 for dates, ASN format). This is adequate for a read-only enrichment 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?

Two sentences plus a list of return fields. No redundant content; all information serves a purpose. The most critical info (purpose, usage, format) comes first.

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 covers purpose, usage examples, parameter formats, and return fields. It does not discuss error handling or data limits, but with an output schema present, the agent can infer structure. Reasonably complete for this tool's complexity.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It specifies that 'asn' format is 'AS12345' and 'since/until' are ISO-8601 UTC strings. These format hints add meaningful semantics beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states it provides a 'full honeypot profile for an ASN' and lists specific return fields. The usage examples differentiate from sibling tools like attack_timeline_tool or ioc_lookup_tool by focusing on ASN enrichment.

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 gives clear example queries ('tell me about AS202425', 'attribute this IP to its network'), showing when to use it. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use, but the examples sufficiently convey appropriate contexts.

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