Search RIPE Atlas Probes

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds behavioral context: 'Returns: Paginated list of probes with ID, country, ASN, status, tags.' This clarifies the output structure and pagination, going beyond the annotations.

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 concise: a one-line summary, a well-organized parameter list with clear formats, and a return statement. No redundant information; every sentence is useful and front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameters, and return structure. It lacks explicit pagination limits or usage advice, but the details are sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists parameters with brief explanations, but these largely mirror the schema descriptions (e.g., status mapping). It does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search for RIPE Atlas probes worldwide with filters for location, network, and status.' It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('probes'), and the tool is distinct from siblings like 'atlas_get_probe' which retrieves a single probe by ID.

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 lists many filters but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'atlas_get_probe' for a specific probe). However, the tool's name and parameter set imply its use case, and the context signals show sibling tools without confusion.

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