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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses exactly what is returned (counts, top malware families, type breakdown, countries) and what is not (the full bundle), plus authentication requirements and the 401 behavior for anonymous callers. This is thorough and transparent.

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 front-loaded with the usage trigger and every sentence adds value: purpose, exclusions, auth, and example. It is organized into clear sections and remains succinct despite covering multiple aspects.

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 expected return fields and explicitly stating the full bundle is not returned. It includes auth details, the alternative fetch URL, and an example, making it self-sufficient for an agent to use 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 schema fully describes the 'days' parameter with min, max, and default. The description adds a concrete example (`{"days": 7}`) and ties it to capacity planning, providing extra context beyond the schema. This justifies a small boost above the baseline.

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 returns a 'Live shape report' on the DugganUSA STIX 2.1 threat feed with specific metrics (indicator count, malware families, source feeds, type breakdown, countries). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it does NOT return the full bundle and directs users to the full feed URL.

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?

The description opens with explicit 'CALL when' triggers (trending, freshness, SIEM planning) and instructs to use it BEFORE pulling the full bundle. It also names the alternative (fetch the bundle URL) and clearly states what the tool does not do.

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