IOC Intelligence Dossier

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 safety profile is established. The description adds the composite-content framing and that it returns 'full story' in a single call, which is marginally useful context. It doesn't note rate limits, data freshness, or what happens for unknown indicators, but with strong annotations the bar is met at a moderate level.

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, both earning their place. The first states what the tool returns; the second gives routing guidance with a sibling alternative. Zero filler, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't needed. With strong annotations (read-only, idempotent), strong schema (100% coverage), and one simple parameter, the description covers the essential context. It could potentially mention what happens with an unrecognized indicator, but for a single-param read-only dossier tool, this is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'value' parameter as an exact indicator value (IP, domain, hash, or URL). The description reinforces that a single exact indicator is expected, which aligns with the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds little beyond what the schema states.

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 the verb ('Get'), resource ('composite intelligence dossier'), and scope ('for one indicator'), then enumerates contents: linked threats, actor attribution, related IOCs, and enrichment context. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search_iocs by clarifying it works with an exact indicator value. This is a specific, well-defined purpose.

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?

Explicitly directs to prefer this over search_iocs when an exact indicator value is available and full context is needed. This implies search_iocs is for broader/fuzzy searches. Naming the alternative tool with a clear when-to-use rule is exactly what dimension 2 rewards.

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