Asn Lookup

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, explicitly stating that data is 'returned for context only' and that scope must be verified separately. It does not mention any rate limits or potential external side effects, but the openWorldHint annotation already covers external access, so the description adds meaningful scope-related transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary action, and packs the essential caveat about netblocks and scope into a concise follow-up. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 mentions that the tool returns ASN and netblocks, which is the core output expectation, and the scope caveat adds important context. However, with no output schema, it does not explain the structure of the response, possible error conditions, or whether an organization name is resolved differently from a domain, leaving some gaps for a simple lookup tool.

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 schema provides no description for the required 'target' parameter (0% coverage), and the description only says it can be a 'domain or organization' without specifying accepted formats, examples, or whether IPs are supported. This is insufficient compensation for the complete lack of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 the verb 'Look up' and the resource 'ASN and netblocks for a domain or organization', making the core purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling recon tools like whois_lookup or dns_resolve, so it misses the top score for explicit sibling differentiation.

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 useful operational guidance by noting that netblocks are for context only and advising to check scope before touching anything. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so the usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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