d3fend_defense_lookup

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds details about 404 behavior, response structure including attack_techniques, and the 7 tactics classification. No contradictions.

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?

Description is informative but slightly dense; it includes all necessary information (purpose, workflow, rate limits, response fields) upfront but could be organized more clearly. Still concise overall.

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 lookup tool with one parameter and clear output, the description covers purpose, usage, expected outputs, error handling, and rate limits. Output schema is fully described in text.

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 covers the parameter with 100% coverage. Description adds examples (TokenBinding, FileHashing) and reinforces the CamelCase slug format, going slightly beyond the schema description.

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 looks up a MITRE D3FEND defense technique using a slug, and differentiates from sibling d3fend_defense_search by noting it should be used after that search for the full record and ATT&CK chain.

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?

Explicitly states use after d3fend_defense_search, describes error condition (404 for missing slug), and provides rate limits (100/hr free, 1000/hr Pro) which guide appropriate usage.

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