Bgp Asn Info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool is a read-only lookup and lists the output fields, which is helpful. However, it does not mention whether the data is real-time or cached, whether it requires network access, or any rate limits. For a simple lookup tool, the lack of behavioral detail is a moderate gap.

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, front-loads the main action, and lists the return fields concisely. Every sentence earns its place 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 tool has a single parameter, a clear output schema, and a simple lookup purpose. The description covers the purpose, the input, and the output fields. It could be more complete by noting whether the data is live or cached, but for a simple ASN lookup, the description 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'asn', which is well-documented with an example. The description adds context by explaining what the ASN is used for, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Get information about an Autonomous System' and lists the specific data returned (AS name, announced prefixes, upstream providers, total prefix count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bgp_route_lookup or bgp_prefix_origin, which focus on routes or prefix origins rather than AS-level footprint.

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 a use case ('Use this to understand an AS's footprint on the Internet') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like peeringdb_network, irr_autnum, or bgp_prefix_origin. The use case is implied but not contrasted with siblings.

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