threat_malicious_feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that DNS-based blocklists are checked via DNS lookups and HTTP-based feeds are checked over HTTP, and that the result includes feed hits and threat categories. However, it does not mention potential latency, network requirements, or that the operation is read-only. It is informative but leaves room for more transparency about side effects or limitations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase adds value. It efficiently names the specific feeds and return type without unnecessary verbosity. The structure is clear and scannable.

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 simple input (one domain) and lack of output schema, the description provides a high-level but sufficient account of what it does and returns ('feed hits and threat categories'). It could be more detailed about the format or absence of hits, but the combination of purpose, methods, and return value makes it reasonably complete.

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 has 100% coverage, with a single parameter 'domain' that includes a description and example. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond restating that the tool checks a domain. Since the schema already fully documents the parameter, a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Checks a domain against free threat intelligence feeds' and lists specific feeds (Spamhaus DBL, SURBL, URLhaus). The verb 'Checks' is specific, the resource 'domain' is explicit, and the scope is well-defined. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bl_check_dnsbl or threat_passive_dns by describing an aggregated feed check rather than a single-feed check.

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 implies usage by naming the included feeds and methods, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as bl_check_dnsbl or threat_cohosting. There is no mention of exclusions or specific scenarios, leaving the agent to infer the value of a multi-feed check from the feed names. This is an implied usage context rather than a clear directive.

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