list_intel_indicator_feeds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List threat indicator feeds' implies a read-only enumeration but reveals nothing about pagination, account scoping, authorization requirements, or response characteristics. This is minimal rather than misleading, but it is far from transparent.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it mostly restates the tool name and provides no scoping or differentiating detail, so the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient elaboration.

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 one-parameter list tool, the description is minimally viable: the agent knows the action, the resource, and the required account_id from the schema. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the absence of account-scope wording, return-shape information, and pagination behavior leaves the definition thinner than ideal.

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%: the only required parameter, account_id, is described simply as 'The account ID.' The description does not add parameter-level context, but because the schema already documents the single parameter, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clear verb 'List' and a specific resource 'threat indicator feeds,' so an agent can tell this is an enumeration operation. It does not explicitly contrast with the singular get_intel_indicator_feed, but the list-versus-get distinction is reasonably clear from the resource naming.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_intel_indicator_feed for a single feed or related Intel list tools. The description only implies enumeration via the word 'List' and leaves all routing decisions to the agent's inference.

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