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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned dimensions (contacted IPs/domains, threat types, match counts) but nothing about rate limits, auth, or freshness of the feeds.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero waste. The capability is front-loaded and the parameter note trails after the purpose, which is the correct ordering.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description needn't explain returns; it still summarizes them helpfully. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, with only the sibling routing left implicit.

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 0% and the schema only labels the field 'Scan Id'. The description compensates by specifying that scan_id is the UUID of a ScanMalware scan, giving both format and source, which the schema alone does not.

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 (check) and resource (one scan against threat-intelligence indicator feeds), then enumerates the returned content: matching IPs and domains contacted, threat types, and a total/unique match summary. An agent can distinguish this from get_malware_by_scan or get_scan_result by the IOC-matching scope alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose ('check one scan against threat-intelligence indicator feeds'), which tells the agent this is the per-scan IOC lookup. However, no alternative sibling is named and no when-not condition is given despite many overlapping get_*_by_scan tools.

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