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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing return content: 'risk level, contributing risk factors, associated threats, and intel feeds.' This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear picture of what the tool provides.

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 two sentences plus a compact example, front-loaded with the core question and then a clear statement of functionality. Every sentence contributes value, and the example is a helpful illustration without being verbose.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with two parameters, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, inputs, and output highlights. It does not explain error handling or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity and good schema coverage, it is adequately complete.

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 100% — both '_apiKey' and 'indicator' are well-described in the input schema. The description adds a usage example but no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. This aligns with the baseline of 3 when the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 opens with a direct question ('Is this IP/domain/URL/hash malicious?') and then clearly states the operation: 'Looks up an indicator of compromise (IOC) in Pulsedive and returns its risk level, contributing risk factors, associated threats, and intel feeds.' This is a specific verb+resource+output description that distinguishes the tool from siblings like pulsedive_explore.

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 clearly conveys when to use this tool: when you need to assess whether an IP, domain, URL, or hash is malicious and obtain risk details. It provides context and a usage example, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. However, the purpose is distinct enough that the context serves as clear usage guidance.

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