ti_indicators_paged

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is a paging mechanism meant to avoid response ceiling issues, and it mentions the summarize behavior (compact indicator list vs. raw STIX). This is sufficient for a simple read-oriented pagination tool, even though it does not explicitly state side-effect-free 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the key differentiator from ti_indicators is placed immediately after. Every sentence adds value.

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 straightforward pagination tool with three self-explanatory parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the intended use case, the main behavioral constraint (response ceiling), and the key output option (summarize), leaving no critical gap for invocation.

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 schema already documents limit, offset, and summarize. The description reinforces the paging intent but adds little beyond what the schema provides, except context about walking the whole feed and response ceiling.

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 'Page through' and the resource 'Indicator Bundles from the Threat Intelligence feed.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling ti_indicators by explaining when to use it ('instead of ti_indicators when you need to walk the whole feed'), so an agent can tell the two apart.

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 explicitly names the alternative ti_indicators and provides a specific condition for using this tool: when the agent needs to walk the whole feed without exceeding the response ceiling. This is direct, actionable guidance with no reliance on inference.

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