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

Annotations already declare this read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: no API key is required and the lookup is performed 'against the graph.' It does not discuss rate limits or return shape, but given the annotation coverage, this is a solid disclosure of the tool's operating context.

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 short sentences plus an example, with the core action front-loaded. Every element earns its place: purpose, indicator types, auth behavior, and a concrete call format. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the low complexity of this one-parameter, read-only lookup tool and the presence of rich annotations, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient: it gives input semantics, auth requirements, and an example. The only notable gap is no description of the output, which is a minor issue since there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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%, and the schema already explains that input can be a domain, IP, ASN, or file hash. The description largely restates those types and adds an example call. The example is mildly useful for showing invocation format, but it does not substantively extend meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Identify an indicator (domain, IP, hash, …) against the graph.' It lists accepted indicator types, making the tool's scope concrete. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar sibling lookups like whisper_lookuptorrelay or whisper_threatintel, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 provides useful usage context by noting 'Answers without an API key' and giving an example call, which implies how and when the tool can be invoked. It does not, however, state when to use this tool versus the sibling whisper_* tools or give any exclusion guidance, leaving the decision to inference.

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