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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions aggregation and pagination but omits critical details such as whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, or the meaning of parameters like 'include_noise' and 'protocol'.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loads the core concept. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for conciseness, which is acceptable given the structure.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and 11 sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to differentiate from siblings, explain return format, or cover parameter semantics beyond pagination.

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 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It only clarifies 'since_ms' as a cursor for pagination, leaving 'limit', 'country', 'protocol', and 'include_noise' unexplained.

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 it provides a 'Recent observations feed' aggregated by source IP within a time window, with cursor pagination. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose without being a tautology.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like scry_asn or scry_country. The description lacks context about ideal scenarios or exclusions.

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