detect_extortion_pattern

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only analysis, a destructive operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the tool actually returns. 'AI threat detection' is too vague to understand the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise (two words) but this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. While it's front-loaded with the only information provided, it lacks the necessary detail to be genuinely helpful.

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 threat detection tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a completely undocumented parameter, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, or how it differs from sibling risk assessment tools.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its single 'message' parameter, and the tool description provides no information about what the parameter represents, expected format, or constraints. For a tool with one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'AI threat detection' is vague and tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'detect_extortion_pattern' without specifying what it actually does. It doesn't clearly indicate what resource it acts upon or what specific verb it performs beyond the generic 'detection' concept.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus its siblings (check_guest_risk_score, get_squatter_risk, etc.). There's no indication of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or alternatives for threat detection scenarios.

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