get_botnet_feed_asn_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explainig behavior. It only restates that this gets a report; it does not disclose whether the report is precomputed or generated on demand, any required permissions, the feed's data scope, or what the response contains. This is a minimal read-operation description with no behavioral detail beyond the tool name itself.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant claims. Every word earns its place, and it clearly states the verb, object, and scope in minimal space.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must supply enough context for an agent to understand what the tool returns and how to invoke it effectively. It fails to describe what a 'botnet feed report' contains, its time interval, how results are structured, or how it relates to the sibling config/report tooling. The agent is left with only a vague 'report' concept and no return-value guidance.

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 coverade is 100%, so both asn_id and account_id already have descriptions in the input schema. The description's 'for an ASN' reinforces that asn_id is the primary subject but adds no additional formatting, units, relationship, or usage semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a clear resource ('botnet feed report') scoped to an ASN. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differntiate itself from sibling tools like get_botnet_feed_asn_config or get_intel_asn, so it falls one point short of the top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_botnet_feed_asn_config, get_intel_asn, or list_intel_indicator_feeds. It does not provide context, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name and description alone.

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