MITRE Technique

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description meaningfully exceeds that: it warns about the potentially huge threat list on a heavily-used technique, recommends include_threats=false for a few KB response, explains paging via limit/offset, and clarifies that threat_count always reports the true total. This alerts the agent to payload-size and performance behavior not visible in 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 with no filler. The first sentence states the core operation and full return-listing; the second covers paging/performance trade-offs. Every clause earns its place, and the description 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 the output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description itself contains everything needed for a correct invocation: required ID format, what fields come back, the optional payload-size switch, pagination controls, and the meaning of threat_count. It leaves no practical gap for an agent selecting or calling this tool.

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 schema covers all four parameters at 100% with helpful descriptions (defaults, max, 'underthehood'). The description goes beyond by explaining how include_threats=false compared to to page 'the low definition alone (a few KB)' rather than relying on names. That added rationale and the threat_count guarantee lifts it above the baseline.

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 opens with 'Get details for a specific MITRE ATT&CK technique by ID (e.g. T1059 or T1059.001)' which is a precise verb + resource + scope. It enumerates the exact fields returned, which clearly differentiates this lookup tool from the many MITRE-adjacent siblings (coverage, transitions, rules, attack flow).

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 clearly identifies the primary use case and gives strong in-tool guidance: how to request just the definition via include_threats=false, how to page the threat list, and what behavior to expect from threat_count. It does not explicitly contrast against alternatives or name when-not-to-use, but no obvious sibling overlaps directly, so explicit exclusions are less critical.

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