netintel_asn_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully enumerates what the caller gets back (ASN, owner, country, hosting/cloud classification, trust score), which implies a safe read-only lookup, but it never states that it is read-only, nor mentions auth needs, rate limits, or whether the trust score is a heuristic.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that names the input and the full set of outputs with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers both input and the shape of the result well. It stops short of noting the read-only nature or error behavior, but nothing critical for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single undocumented 'target' parameter. Saying it accepts 'an IP or domain' does exactly that by defining the accepted input types, which is meaningful added value beyond the bare string 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 states a specific verb (resolve) and resource (IP/domain to ASN, network owner, country, hosting/cloud classification) plus the trust-score output, so the tool's function is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like netintel_ip_geo or netintel_ip_reputation, relying on the ASN/ownership framing to do that implicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to pick this over netintel_ip_geo, netintel_ip_reputation, or netintel_whois_lookup, which all touch adjacent ground. Usage is only implied by the described outputs, with no conditions or exclusions stated.

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