threat_trending

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by disclosing the tier requirement and the return format (JSON string), which are not in the annotations. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured field.

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 two initial sentences and two lines for parameters and returns. Every sentence adds value without fluff. The key purpose is 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 simplicity (2 optional params, read-only, output schema present), the description is complete enough. It covers tier requirement, parameters, and return type. Could elaborate on 'trending' criteria, but it's adequate.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, leaving both parameters undocumented. The description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: 'hours' as the look-back window and 'min_occurrences' as the minimum occurrence count, including 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get trending' and the resource 'threat signatures' and explains what the tool does: shows the most active threats in a time window. It distinguishes itself from siblings like threat_feed or threat_stats by focusing on 'trending' signatures and providing parameters for time and occurrences.

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 tier requirement (Pro or Novyx Cloud) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like threat_feed, threat_stats, or threat_signature. Usage context is implied by 'trending,' but no when-not or alternative recommendations are provided.

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