list_intel_sinkholes

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only states a list action and gives no details about pagination, response shape, required permissions, or whether results are account-scoped. The verb implies read-only behavior but adds little beyond the tool name.

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. It is concise, though it sacrifices useful detail.

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 with no output schema and no annotations, this sparse description leaves too much unspecified: what a sinkhole is, what the returned data contains, and whether results are paginated. The account_id parameter is documented, but the tool's purpose lacks enough context for reliable 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%: account_id is described as 'The account ID'. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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 specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('Cloudflare sinkholes'), so an agent can tell this is a list operation. However, it does not differentiate the resource from similar siblings like list_intel_indicator_feeds or list_intel_ip_lists, and 'sinkholes' is not elaborated.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, or what kind of account/context requires it. With many sibling list tools in the intel domain, the description leaves the selection decision entirely to the agent.

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