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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds the 30-day retention window, the exact return shape, and a prompt-injection warning that AI-authored field values are untrusted data. That untrusted-content disclosure is material behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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-loads what is returned before the routing hint, download alternatives, and security warning. Dense but each clause (field list, CSV/STIX endpoints, untrusted warning) carries information; slightly long but not padded.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the campaign header fields and row fields returned, plus the filter and cap behavior. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so campaign_id format, type enum, and limit bounds are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that type filters and limit caps, adding no new syntax or format meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (return) and resource (full IOC membership of one AI-clustered campaign) with explicit scope (30-day window) and enumerates the returned fields. An agent can distinguish it from get_campaigns (ids) and list_recent_iocs/query_iocs 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_campaigns for valid ids and names CSV/STIX download alternatives for the same data. It does not state when-not to use it versus query_iocs or list_recent_iocs, so it stops short of full when/alternatives coverage.

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