check_ioc_reputation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job by specifying supported IOC types and detailing the return structure (verdict, confidence, threat_categories, recommendations). This provides predictability about behavior, though it does not disclose potential side effects, data sources, or limitations like rate limits. Still, for a read-only lookup tool, this is solid.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, Args, and Returns. It is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds useful information. No wasted words or repetitive content.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, 1 required) and the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return values in a structured format. The included output schema (Returns) makes the behavior fully understandable. No critical gaps remain.

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 0%, but the description's Args section fully explains both parameters: ioc_value (the IOC to check with examples) and ioc_type (allowed enum values and the 'auto' detect behavior). This goes far beyond the bare schema, which only provides names and types.

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 the tool's function: 'Check the reputation of an Indicator of Compromise (IOC).' It names the specific verb 'check' and the resource 'reputation of an IOC,' and further distinguishes itself by listing supported IOC types (IPs, domains, file hashes, URLs). This differentiates it from sibling tools like enrich_ip_with_threat_intel, which is IP-specific.

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 implies usage for quick reputation checks of various IOC types, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. It lacks explicit 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' guidance, so it only meets the implied usage level.

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