ioc_lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds value by detailing auto-detection, source coverage (which sources for each type), and behavior like 'sources_queried' and 'sources_unavailable'. No contradictions with annotations.

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 moderately sized and well-structured, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds necessary information (coverage, guidance, rate limits) without redundancy, though it could be slightly more concise.

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, multiple feeds, rate limits, output schema), the description is comprehensive. It covers auto-detection, source coverage, failure behavior, and usage guidance. The output schema exists, so no need to explain return values.

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 already provides a detailed description and examples for the 'indicator' parameter, covering format and examples. The description does not add significant semantic information beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool enriches IOCs (IP/domain/URL/hash) by auto-detecting type and querying abuse.ch feeds. It clearly distinguishes from siblings threat_intel and hash_lookup by specifying their more limited scopes.

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 description provides explicit guidance: 'Use as primary IOC triage tool when type unknown; use threat_intel for domain-only, hash_lookup for richer MalwareBazaar hash data.' It also mentions rate limits, helping agents decide when to use this tool.

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