gnql-metadata-query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not return raw scan data, is lighter and faster, supports CSV, and results are paginated. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a read-like tool, this is adequate. The description provides key behavioral traits beyond what the schema shows.

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 four sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and additional features. Every sentence adds value, and there is no irrelevant information. It is well-structured and concise.

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 appropriately states what is returned (IP metadata, tags, classification) and mentions CSV support. It does not detail the exact fields, but for a tool with simple parameters and clear sibling distinction, it is sufficiently complete. The pagination mechanism is mentioned, and the context signals indicate no nested objects.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the tool's use case (metadata vs raw scans) and performance comparison, which gives context to the query parameter. It also mentions CSV format and pagination, complementing the schema's parameter descriptions.

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: search GreyNoise data using GNQL, returning IP metadata without raw scan data. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool gnql-query by claiming it is 'lighter and faster'. The verb 'Search' and resource 'GreyNoise data' are specific, and the omission of raw scan details is explicit.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'when you need IP classification, tags, and metadata but not raw scan details'. It implies the alternative gnql-query for raw scan data, and mentions CSV format and pagination support, providing clear context for usage decisions.

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