peerglass_threat_intel

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

Despite annotations declaring readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, the description adds critical behavioral context: GreyNoise requires GREYNOISE_API_KEY while Shodan does not, data source limitations (Community vs InternetDB), and output structure details (aggregated risk score 0-100 with specific levels). 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?

Excellent structure with hierarchical organization: high-level summary, numbered data sources with bullet points, and standard Args/Returns sections. Every sentence delivers value—source capabilities, authentication requirements, or output format details—without redundancy.

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 (dual external APIs, aggregated scoring logic) and 0% schema coverage, the description is remarkably complete. It covers input semantics, authentication prerequisites, data source behaviors, and return value structure, leaving no critical gaps for invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the Args section fully compensates by documenting both the 'ip' parameter (with IPv4 example) and 'response_format' (with valid values and default). This provides complete semantic meaning missing from the raw schema.

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 opens with 'Passive threat intelligence for an IP address from two sources'—a specific verb-resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like peerglass_geo_lookup or peerglass_dns_resolve. The explicit naming of Shodan and GreyNoise further differentiates its unique function.

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 through detailed capability listing (risk scores, CVEs, GreyNoise classification), allowing an agent to infer this is for security assessment rather than general network debugging. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance comparing it to siblings like peerglass_atlas_trace or peerglass_passive_dns.

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