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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is a free sample, returns live data, and omits flagged items/entities. It also mentions the data proves continuous updates. While it doesn't cover error handling or exact response format, the key behavioral traits and limitations are 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 two sentences plus an example, with every sentence earning its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and limitations, and the example usage is practical without extraneous details.

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 sample tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned, what is excluded, how to upgrade, and how to try it. It is complete for its intended purpose.

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% with a clear description of the location parameter and default. The description adds value by offering a concrete example ('culpeper-town') and instructing how to discover other locations via browse_catalog, going beyond the schema's basic definition.

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 that this tool returns a free live threat assessment sample with specific data points (threat level, confidence score, event distribution, scan freshness). It distinguishes itself from get_threat_summary by explicitly noting the sample excludes flagged items or entities, and provides upgrade guidance.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use this for a free sample to verify data is live, and upgrade to get_threat_summary for full detail. It also gives example usage and directs to browse_catalog for all locations, making the intended context clear and distinguishing from alternatives.

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