Infrastructure Pivots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that results are derived from shared IPs/domains and DNS overlaps, which is useful behavioral context about output origin. However, it doesn't disclose details like pagination, result volume, or whether results require additional lookups, so it adds moderate but not rich context beyond 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. The first sentence defines purpose and mechanism, the second provides usage orientation and an alternative. Every clause earns its place, and the key usage distinction is front-loaded.

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?

Given a single-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, mechanism, and alternatives. It could theoretically add a note about what the output contains (the output schema likely covers the return shape), so the description is effectively sufficient for this tool's complexity.

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% — the single required parameter threat_id is documented with a format example (TL-2026-0042). The description adds context about the parameter's role ('for a given threat') but no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. With full coverage, 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource (surface cross-threat infrastructure links from a threat) and clearly distinguishes from the sibling get_similar_threats, which handles TTP/actor-based similarity. It names the mechanism (shared IPs/domains, DNS-derived overlaps) and the exact scope, making it highly specific and 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 it ('widen from a single threat to its infrastructure neighborhood') and provides an explicit alternative ('use get_similar_threats for TTP/actor-based similarity instead'). This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a named sibling tool, meeting the highest bar.

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