ti_multi_source_ttp_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the fan-out behavior across sources and lists the returned information categories: actors, malware, vendor reports, detection coverage, and telemetry requirements. It does not mention latency, failure modes, or rate limits, but it gives a clear and accurate picture of what the tool does.

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 core content is compact and informative, with key input and output details in two functional sentences. The 'ELITE CORRELATION' prefix is unnecessary marketing noise and slightly detracts from conciseness, but the rest is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 multi-source complexity and lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent needs to know: required technique ID, the sources consulted, and the types of results returned. It does not detail response shape or empty-result handling, but it is largely complete for invocation and expectation-setting.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces that technique_id is the core input but does not add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions for client_region and client_industry.

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 a specific verb and resource: given a MITRE technique ID, it fans out across multiple sources and returns a fused picture. It explicitly names what it aggregates (MITRE ATT&CK, vendor blogs, local detection index) and the output categories, which distinguishes it from more focused sibling lookups like lookup_mitre_technique or list_by_mitre.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: 'the definitive first stop for any TTP investigation.' This tells an agent the intended launch point for broad TTP research, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use scenarios.

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