lookup_ioc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful information by indicating the response will include related threat actors, malware, and MITRE techniques, and it is clearly a read-style operation. It does not mention failure behavior, empty results, or any rate/access limitations, but for a simple lookup the disclosed output scope is reasonably helpful.

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, tightly worded sentence. It front-loads the action and target, includes the key scope via parenthetical content, and ends with the value-add of related context. No filler or redundant phrasing is present.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what input to provide and broadly what to expect in the response. It could be more explicit about the return shape or behavior when no context is found, but the core usage is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 fully documents the only parameter 'ioc' with type, maxLength, and an example-based description of accepted formats. The tool description essentially repeats that same type list (IP, hash, domain, URL) but adds no deeper semantic guidance. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline 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 states a clear action ('Get full context') and resource ('a specific IOC'), and enumerates the accepted IOC types and the kind of context returned ('related threat actors, malware, and MITRE techniques'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish lookup_ioc from siblings such as lookup_hash or get_entity, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 implies a targeted lookup of a known IOC value, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not mention alternatives like search_threat_intel, lookup_hash, or get_relationships, leaving the agent to figure out when to prefer this tool over those.

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