Bulk Get Threats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the batch limit (20 per call) and return shape ({threats, missing, count}), including the 'missing' field which signals that non-existent IDs are reported rather than failing the whole call. This adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. Front-loads the core purpose in sentence one, then delivers the usage guideline in sentence two. Every word earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists and returns {threats, missing, count}, which the description restates. For a simple 1-parameter batch read tool with strong annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and key constraints. Minor gap: doesn't explain what 'missing' means semantically (IDs not found), though the field name is fairly self-explanatory.

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 has 100% description coverage: threat_ids is described as 'Threat IDs (max 20)'. The description reinforces the max-20 constraint and clarifies the return semantics. The schema already documents the parameter well, so the description adds marginal value (the max-20 is repeated). Baseline 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?

Description is specific: verb (fetch) + resource (threats) + scope (up to 20 by ID in one call). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_threat (single fetch) and search_threats (search-based). Distinguishes itself as the batch/IDs-driven variant.

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?

States a clear usage context: 'Use when you already have a list of threat IDs.' This tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list (get_threat, search_threats) makes the context relatively clear. Could add explicit exclusion like 'use get_threat for single IDs.'

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