Threat Intel Source Catalog

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

Annotations already fully cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). Description adds operational scope (canonical sources and freshness) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with the key action 'Return'. Highly efficient.

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 parameterless tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description provides complete context: it returns canonical sources and freshness. No gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so description needs no parameter detail. The description correctly omits parameter info as it is unnecessary.

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 clearly states verb 'Return' and resource 'canonical threat-intel sources and local feed-run freshness'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like intel_lookup and intel_match by specifying it returns the catalog and freshness, not performing lookups or matches.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is straightforward as a read-only catalog. Usage is implied, but no exclusions or context provided.

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