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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavior: it auto-detects indicator type, routes to different analysis sources, returns a normalized CLEAR/SUSPICIOUS/MALICIOUS verdict with risk score and details, and costs $0.05 USDC via x402. This is useful context an agent cannot infer from readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive annotations alone.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core 'one call, any indicator' behavior, then gives output shape and price. The opening phrase duplicates the title, but the overall structure is efficient and scannable.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the input types, the internal routing behavior, the returned verdict/score/details, and the pricing. 'Full details' remains high-level, but an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the result at the required level of detail.

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 already documents the single indicator parameter as 'an IP, domain, or URL to check' at 100% coverage. The description essentially restates this accepted input and adds the auto-detection behavior, but it does not add substantive new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema says.

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 a specific action and resource: pass an IP, domain, or URL and get a unified threat verdict. It also distinguishes itself from the many specialized sibling tools by calling itself the 'single entry point' bundle that auto-detects indicator type and routes to the right analysis.

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?

It explicitly identifies when to use this tool: any IOC, any type, because it auto-detects and routes internally. It does not name specific sibling alternatives or exclusions such as bulk screening, but 'the single entry point for checking any IOC' gives enough context for an agent to choose it over specialized lookups.

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