Bulk IOC Lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: auto-detection of IOC type, per-type source coverage (hash → ThreatFox, etc.), and mention that each result carries verdict.sources_queried / sources_unavailable for partial failure visibility. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't detail all side effects (none exist).

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 a single paragraph that efficiently packs key information—purpose, constraints, source coverage, rate limits, and return format—without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the primary use case. No fluff, but slight improvement could be made with bullet points for clarity.

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 tool's complexity (multiple IOC types, different source mappings, batch behavior, partial failures), the description covers all essential aspects: input limits, per-type source coverage, return structure with {results, total, successful, failed, timed_out, partial, summary}, and rate limits. An output schema exists (not shown), so return values are documented. The description is comprehensive for an AI agent to use correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single required parameter 'indicators'. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: maximum 50 per request, auto-detection of indicator type, and the per-indicator behavior. These details help the agent construct valid inputs and understand constraints.

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 it is for batch querying multiple IOCs (IP/domain/URL/hash) up to 50 per call, with auto-detection of type. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool ioc_lookup by specifying batch vs. single indicator use.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use for SOC alert triage or batch enrichment, and use ioc_lookup for single indicator. Also includes rate limits (Free 30/hr, Pro 500/hr) and max batch size, helping the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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