get_indicator_feed_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return format ('feed body, e.g. STIX/CSV'), which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about permissions/auth scope, payload size, or whether retrieval is streaming/paginated.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action and its scope front-loaded before the return-format note. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return-value semantics (raw feed body, STIX/CSV) and the keying-by-feed-ID. It falls short only in not clarifying how it differs from the similar 'download' sibling, which is the one thing an agent most needs here.

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% and both required parameters ('feed_id', 'account_id') are documented in the schema. The description only restates 'by feed ID' and adds no format, sourcing, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get the raw data of a specific threat-intelligence indicator feed') and scopes it by feed ID, so the action is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling 'download_indicator_feed_data', nor from 'get_indicator_feed' (metadata), leaving the agent to guess which one fetches the raw body.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling feed tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With 'download_indicator_feed_data' sitting right next to it, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.

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