misp_warninglist_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the semantic context well (warning lists = known false positives / legitimate infrastructure, with examples like Alexa top 1M and Google CDN). However, it does not disclose the return format or behavior — e.g., whether the result is a boolean, which specific lists matched, or how multiple lists are aggregated — which matters for an agent deciding how to act on the result.

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 sentences, each earning its place: action, conceptual context, and usage timing. The purpose is front-loaded and there is no fluff. It is slightly information-dense, but appropriately sized for a tool whose domain concept (warning lists) benefits from explanation.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers selection and invocation well, including the default 'all lists' behavior captured in the schema. The main gap is the absence of any hint about return values, which an agent would need to interpret the check result in a pivot workflow.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces the IOC types (domain, IP, URL) and provides illustrative context for the lists parameter, but adds little semantic value beyond the schema's own coverage of the parameter names and defaults.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Check if an IOC... appears in MISP warning lists') and defines the IOC types covered (domain, IP, URL). It clearly differentiates itself from the many sibling search/pivot tools by explaining its unique role as a false-positive filter, and even gives concrete examples of what these lists contain.

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?

Gives explicit temporal guidance: 'Run this BEFORE pivoting on a domain or IP to avoid wasting time on FPs.' This tells an agent when in a workflow to invoke it, which is strong guidance relative to the many pivot/search siblings. It does not name a specific alternative tool or state an explicit exclusion, so it falls just short of a 5.

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