top_attackers_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses a behavioral constraint (memory limits requiring filters for large ranges) and explains the grouping parameter. 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?

The description is a single paragraph but efficiently packs purpose, examples, and parameter details. It front-loads the key purpose and is not overly verbose, though more structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability.

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?

The description covers most parameters and usage details but omits the 'limit' parameter (default 20) and does not explain the output schema. Since an output schema exists, return value documentation is less critical, but the missing 'limit' mention is a gap.

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 0%, so the description adds significant value by explaining 'by' options (ip, asn, country, port, user_agent, ja4, url_path), filter formats (2-letter ISO for country, 'AS12345' for ASN), and that since/until are ISO-8601 UTC strings. This effectively compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's a 'Ranked leaderboard of attack sources' and provides specific example queries like 'who is attacking the most?', 'top attacking countries', etc., which differentiate it from siblings like attack_timeline_tool (timeline) and search_events_tool (general 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 description lists example use cases and explicitly states when to add filters ('Adding a filter is required for large time ranges to stay within memory limits'). It doesn't directly contrast with siblings, but the guidance is clear enough.

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