ioc_lookup

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) are consistent. Description adds behavioral details: auto-detects type, per-type source coverage, fields in return (sources_queried, sources_unavailable). 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?

Well-structured but somewhat lengthy. Every sentence adds value (purpose, coverage, usage, limits, return fields). Could be slightly more concise, but clarity is prioritized.

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 (multi-source, auto-detection) and presence of output schema, the description covers key aspects: source coverage per type, behavior on failures, return structure, and rate limits. No major gaps.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed description. The tool description adds context on auto-detection and how the single parameter is processed, enriching the schema beyond basic format examples.

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 enriches Indicators of Compromise with auto-detection and queries abuse.ch feeds. It distinguishes from siblings by naming alternative tools (threat_intel, hash_lookup) for specific use cases.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: primary IOC triage when type unknown. Provides alternatives: threat_intel for domain-only, hash_lookup for richer hash data. Also includes rate limits (100/hr free, 1000/hr Pro) and notes on unavailable sources.

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