Generate C2 Blocklist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds useful context about the output being deduplicated network indicators and firewall-ready format, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits beyond that (e.g., recency window, format specifics, or staleness policy). With annotations covering the safety profile, adding the dedup/actionable context earns a moderate score.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence provides the alternative-tool guidance. Every clause earns its place with zero filler or redundancy.

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 has no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations fully declare the behavioral safety profile. The description covers purpose, output format, and alternative tool selection. The only minor gap is not clarifying the exact recency window or time range of 'recently observed' indicators, but with an output schema present, the return format doesn't need description. This is largely complete.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage is trivially satisfied. The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where there is nothing to document.

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 clearly states what the tool does: compiles a firewall-ready C2 blocklist of active IPs, returns deduplicated indicators ready for a denylist. It distinguishes itself from sibling get_c2 by specifying when to use each ('use get_c2 with view="beacons" when you need the underlying beacon detail'). Specific verb (compile/generate) + specific resource (C2 blocklist) makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this for actionable blocking') and names the alternative (get_c2 with view='beacons') for when beacon detail is needed. This is an explicit when/when-not pairing with a sibling named directly, satisfying the highest bar for usage guidance.

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