Explain ATT&CK technique

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the data comes from a bundled offline snapshot and every result carries the ATT&CK version, which matters for staleness/trust. It stops short of stating behavior for unknown or malformed IDs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence leads with the verb and resource, then enumerates returned fields — useful given there is no output schema. The field list is slightly long but each item is informative, so little waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what the response contains (name, tactics, platforms, detection, mitigations, URL, version), and the offline-snapshot note covers the closed-world trait. For a simple single-ID lookup, nothing essential is missing beyond error handling.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already defines the id pattern, max length, and an example. The description only repeats the example format (T1059.001), adding no new semantics beyond the schema, 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 ('MITRE ATT&CK enterprise technique or sub-technique') with a concrete example ID, so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_mitre, leaving the lookup-by-id vs search distinction implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the single-id lookup and example suggest 'use when you already have a technique ID,' but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance is given and search_mitre is never mentioned as the alternative. An agent must infer the routing from sibling names alone.

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