enrich_ioc

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses concurrent and fault-tolerant fan-out, folding responses into one verdict with malware families, C2 flag, and references. Also includes a security warning about untrusted data. This is thorough behavioral context.

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?

Three paragraphs: concise first sentence, detailed second paragraph, security warning third. Informative but could be streamlined. No redundancy, but some details (like source names) could be integrated more succinctly.

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?

Output schema exists, so description doesn't need to detail return values. It explains the output includes verdict, malware families, C2 flag, references, and trustworthiness. For a single-parameter tool with output schema, this is quite 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter. Description adds the types (IP, URL, domain, hash) which matches schema. Adds context about classification and fan-out, but not significantly beyond schema. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'enrich' and resource 'one indicator (IP/URL/domain/hash)' across all intel sources. It distinguishes from siblings like bulk_hash_lookup by focusing on single IOC enrichment from multiple sources.

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?

Description provides context on what the tool does (enriches one indicator, fans out to multiple sources) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like check_c2_blocklist or compare_verdicts. There are no exclusions or when-not instructions.

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