misp_review_submissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral detail: how submitted_by/reporter/justification are parsed from comments, that attributes added via MISP UI will have empty fields, and the exact structure of the JSON return. 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?

Description is brief yet comprehensive: first sentence states purpose and use case, second paragraph explains parsing behavior and caveat about UI-added attributes, third paragraph shows return JSON format. No redundant sentences; information is front-loaded and well-organized.

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 (multiple optional filters, special parsing, output schema exists), the description covers all relevant aspects: purpose, usage guidance, behavioral quirks, return format, and parameter semantics indirectly. It leaves no critical gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Each parameter in the input schema has its own description (e.g., days, limit, event_id, only_to_ids, submitted_by), so schema coverage for parameters is high. The description adds no new information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, making the added value minimal. 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 explicitly states the tool audits recent additions to the submissions event, lists what it reveals (indicators, who, when, detection flags), and distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like misp_submit_ioc (submission) and misp_search_events (general search). Purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 advises using it 'to spot bad or unwanted IOCs and who submitted them,' which provides a clear use case. It also explains limitations (UI-added attributes lack fields) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. However, the context of siblings makes this implicit.

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