cf_get_threats_by_country

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states 'Lecture seule' (read-only), which is useful but minimal. No disclosure of rate limits, authentication, or other behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, data freshness).

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 a single sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the read-only nature. Every word serves a purpose.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should describe the return format (e.g., list of countries with counts). It does not, leaving the agent without crucial information about the tool's output. Sibling context is not leveraged.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'N jours' matches schema's 'Nombre de jours'). No new meaning is added.

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 the distribution of blocked threats by country over N days and that it is read-only. It uniquely identifies the resource and action, differentiating it from siblings like cf_get_traffic (overall traffic) and cf_get_targeted_paths (specific paths).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'Lecture seule' hints at safety, there is no mention of scenarios or exclusions. The description does not help the agent decide between this and sibling tools.

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