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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the important scoping fact that IOC data is returned only as counts per type and per tag, not as records, which prevents a caller from expecting full IOC objects and explains the need to chain to list_report_iocs.

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 sentences, zero filler: the return contents are front-loaded and the sibling routing follows. Every clause carries operational information.

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, so return-shape explanation is optional, yet the description still summarizes the key fields and the counting behavior. Combined with full annotation coverage and a fully documented parameter, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema (coverage 100%), including a format pattern and example id, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds only the implicit constraint of fetching one report at a time, with no extra syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 ("Get one Rösti report") and enumerates the payload: metadata, MITRE ATT&CK ids, CVEs, export formats, and IOC counts per type and per tag. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling retrieval tools that return the underlying IOCs and YARA rules, so an agent can select it without opening any 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?

Gives clear routing for the two most likely confusions: use list_report_iocs for the IOCs themselves and get_yara_rules for its YARA rules. It stops short of addressing search_reports or find_related_reports, so discovery-side alternatives are left implicit.

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