pulsedive_indicator

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the shape of the response (risk level, threats, feeds, properties), which is useful, but says nothing about rate limits, authentication, or behavior on unknown indicators.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the action and accepted input types front-loaded ahead of the return-value summary. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, accepted inputs, and return content, and annotations carry the safety profile. It stops short of error behavior or rate-limit notes, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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% for the single 'indicator' parameter, and the description merely restates the same accepted types (IP, domain, URL, hash). It adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 (look up) and resource (indicator: IP, domain, URL, or hash) on a named platform, and previews the returned fields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like pulsedive_search or pulsedive_explore, so an agent must infer that this is the single-indicator lookup versus a keyword search.

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 'look up an indicator' implies usage for a known indicator value, which is reasonable guidance for a one-required-param lookup. However, it never states when to prefer this over pulsedive_search or pulsedive_explore, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving routing to inference.

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