Latest Threats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-data scope are covered. The description contributes the result ordering, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or what a 'USOM record' contains.

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?

A single short sentence with the ordering constraint front-loaded and no filler. Nothing to trim.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to convey scope and ordering, which it does. The remaining gap is the lack of any sibling differentiation against search_threats.

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%, with type/limit/category all documented in the schema including enum values and the 1-200 bound. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema does all the work and the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the most recently added USOM records') and adds the ordering guarantee ('newest first'), which is genuinely informative. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_threats, so an agent must infer the difference from the name alone.

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 phrase 'most recently added ... newest first' implies this is the tool for chronological/recency browsing rather than targeted lookup, which is usable guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the alternative search_threats, and no exclusions, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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