threat_match

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the comparison against the threat database and requiring specific tiers, but does not detail potential errors or side effects.

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 concise, with a clear purpose sentence, requirement, and parameter docs. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 tool with two parameters and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description covers purpose, parameters, requirements, and return value, making it fully contextual.

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 description explains the threat_event parameter as a JSON string (schema also allows objects) and min_similarity with range and default. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates well by adding meaning.

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 tool finds known threat signatures matching a threat event, and the sibling tools include threat-related tools like threat_feed and threat_signature, distinguishing this tool as an event-matching function.

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 mentions the requirement for Pro tier or Novyx Cloud, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like threat_signature or threat_feed. The usage context is implied by the purpose.

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