Bgp Hijacks

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly signals a read-only external search, identifies the required CLOUDFLARE_API_TOKEN credential, and summarizes the returned event fields. It does not mention rate limits or pagination behavior, but these are not critical for safe invocation.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose, event semantics/output, and auth requirement. Every sentence contributes actionable information for selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

Given a rich input schema, an output schema, and the sibling set, the description covers the essential non-obvious facts: API token requirement, the definition of a hijack event, and the output fields. It is slightly light on when to choose this over related BGP tools, but it is otherwise complete enough for correct use.

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 adds meaning by explaining that events include confidence scores, hijacker and victim ASNs, affected prefixes, and duration, which clarifies the intent behind filters like asn, prefix, and min_confidence beyond the raw schema text.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search for BGP origin hijack events') and explains what constitutes a hijack via RPKI, IRR, and historical data. It is clearly scoped, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like bgp_leaks or bgp_historical_lookup.

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 gives useful context: this is for finding unauthorized prefix originations and it requires a Cloudflare Radar API token. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as bgp_leaks or rpki_validate, leaving the selection logic mostly implicit.

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