list_threat_profiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as listing threat profiles and mentions return type, but lacks details on pagination, ordering, or what happens when no profiles exist. The existence of an output schema partially mitigates the lack of behavioral details.

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 somewhat verbose with two paragraphs explaining what Threat Profiles are. While front-loaded with the main purpose, it could be more concise by removing explanatory text that is not directly about tool usage.

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: explains what Threat Profiles are, when to use them, and their importance. It doesn't detail return field structure, but the output schema compensates.

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 one parameter 'limit' with no description (0% coverage). The description does not mention this parameter at all, failing to add meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'Threat Profiles', explaining their purpose as filters for threat intelligence. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'search_threats' by specifying that this tool should be used first.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'When searching for threats, we must use this tool first... before performing a general search using the search_threats tool.' Also explains that recommendations from Threat Profiles are more relevant, giving clear priority rules.

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