check_realtime_threat_feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: the tool is operator-deploy only and degrades to info when unprovisioned, explaining a failure mode. This is meaningful additional context without contradicting anything.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a differentiation note and deployment context. Every word earns its place—no redundancy or filler. Ideal structure for quickly orienting an agent.

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 (domain check) with rich annotations, full parameter documentation, and an output schema existing. The description covers key differentiators (realtime, curated, not DNSBL) and failure behavior (degrade to info). It could mention specific use cases or output expectations, but given the simplicity and available structured data, it is sufficiently complete.

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 each parameter already has a clear description (domain, format with enum, force_refresh). The tool description itself doesn't add any extra parameter meaning beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline 3 for high coverage applies. No new information about parameter usage or format is provided beyond the schema.

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 action ('Check a domain against BlackVeil real-time threat intelligence') with a specific resource (curated intel-gateway feed). It explicitly distinguishes from DNSBL checks, which separates it from siblings like check_dbl and check_rbl, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides context by stating it's distinct from DNSBL checks and indicates deployment constraints ('Operator-deploy only; degrades to info when unprovisioned'). While it doesn't explicitly list alternative tools for specific scenarios, the distinction from DNSBL checks gives a clear when-not-to-use signal. More explicit exclusions would elevate it to 5.

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