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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it: it defines the response envelope {items,total,offset,limit}, enumerates the per-item fields returned, and specifies sort and filter capabilities including a hard constraint that timestamps support only __gte and __lt with no bare equality. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then drill-down details in a logical order. It is dense with zero filler sentences, though the operator enumeration is repeated verbatim from the fieldFilters schema description and could have been trimmed to a reference.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the exact response envelope and item contents. For a six-parameter, nested-filter list tool with no annotations, everything an agent needs to call it correctly — sort fields, prefix syntax, operator limits, pagination — is present.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value the schema defers on — it enumerates concrete sort fields (name, created_at, updated_at, enriched_at, trending_<N><m|h|d>) and filter prefixes (name:, uuid:, internal_name:, desc:), and calls out notable fieldFilters keys. The operator semantics text duplicates the fieldFilters schema description verbatim rather than adding to it, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List and filter Mallory threat actors") and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling getThreatActor by noting this returns lean summaries and that full detail requires the item identifier. An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes heavy-detail lookups to getThreatActor ("Pass an item's identifier to getThreatActor for the full detail object"), which is a clear when-to-use-the-other-tool rule. It lacks an explicit when-not clause (e.g., don't use this for bulk exports or cross-entity search), but the context is unambiguous.

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