maltego_asn

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

The description mentions the data source 'Team Cymru', which adds some transparency about external dependency. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose potential behaviors such as rate limits, error handling, or whether the tool is read-only.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, conveying the essential purpose and data source efficiently.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and data source. It could be improved by mentioning what happens on invalid input or data freshness, but it is largely sufficient.

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 description adds minimal meaning over the schema: it specifies that the IP is used for the lookup and mentions the data source. It does not clarify the format (IPv4/IPv6, public vs. private) or any constraints, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate more.

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 action (look up) and the specific data returned (ASN, netblock, country, org for an IP) using a specific data source (Team Cymru). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like whois or DNS lookups.

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 implies the tool is for looking up ASN information for an IP address, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when you need routing info vs. organizational details) or any exclusions.

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