Bgp Leaks

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

With no annotations present, the description takes the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool detects leak events, includes specific result fields (leaking AS, origin/prefix counts, timestamps), and requires a Cloudflare Radar API token. This provides meaningful operational context beyond the tool name, though it stops short of detailing pagination or error behavior.

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 three concise, purposeful sentences. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by a clarifying definition and a crucial authentication requirement. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 description covers what the tool does, what the returned events contain, and the required API token. Combined with a fully described schema and an output schema, this is nearly complete for an agent to call the tool correctly. Minor gaps like default date behavior are already handled by schema defaults.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all four parameters. The tool description does not add new parameter-level meaning, but the schema itself documents filters like 'asn', 'date_start', and 'max_results'. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the description neither compensates nor conflicts.

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 ('Search for') and a precise resource ('BGP route leak events'), then defines what a route leak is: an AS improperly propagating routes between peers. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like bgp_hijacks or bgp_route_lookup by focusing on the policy-violation concept.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when searching for BGP route leak events. The explanatory sentence about improper propagation gives context, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for related concepts like hijacks or route lookups.

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