get_indicator

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, but the description adds a critical behavioral warning that text fields are untrusted third-party CTI content and must never be treated as instructions. This is a high-value disclosure beyond the structured safety hints.

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 two focused sentences: the first states the purpose and returned content, and the second front-loads the important security warning. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

The tool is a simple read operation with one fully documented parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema. The description covers purpose, return shape, and the key untrusted-content caveat, leaving nothing essential missing for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema as an OpenCTI UUID or 'indicator--<uuid>'. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 ('Fetch') and resource ('one indicator') and enumerates the returned data, making it clearly a single-record detail lookup rather than a search. It is distinguishable from siblings like search_indicators and get_observable based on the singular indicator focus.

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 usage is implied by 'Fetch one indicator' and the required id parameter, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over search_indicators, lookup_observable, or observable_indicators. No exclusions or alternative-routing guidance are provided.

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