Peeringdb Network

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the underlying two-request data source, the null-network/error semantics, and the risk of partial records when upstream lookup fails. This is substantial transparency beyond what the schema shows.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by the return contents, then the data-source and edge-case details. Every sentence adds information an agent needs; there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 an output schema, the description covers the main behavior, the key return fields, the external data source, and the important null/error response cases. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and interpret ambiguous results.

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?

There is only one parameter, asn, and the schema already describes it with an example. The description adds no new format, range, or constraint information, so it provides no value beyond the high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Look up a network in PeeringDB by ASN.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like peeringdb_ix and peeringdb_facility by stating it focuses on network records and their IXP peerings, so an agent can select it confidently.

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 clear context: it is 'useful for understanding a network's peering footprint and how to reach it.' It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when NOT to use it, but for a straightforward lookup tool the usage context is clear enough.

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