Recent Threats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful value by explaining pagination behavior — that next_cursor is opaque, reusable as offset/cursor, and that offset/cursor interplay ('ignored when offset is given') — which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 wasted words. The description front-loads the core purpose in the first clause, then packs the pagination contract concisely. Every phrase ('opaque', 'reusable as offset/cursor') 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?

With a valid output schema, high schema coverage, and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the essential pagination contract clearly. The only minor gap is not naming alternatives explicitly, but for a paginated list tool this is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds value by clarifying the relationship between cursor and offset (cursor decoded to offset, ignored when offset given) and describing the has_more/next_cursor return format, which compensates meaningfully beyond the schema alone.

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+resource ('List the most recently published threats') and adds the pagination scope detail. It distinguishes from siblings like get_threat (single), search_threats (search filter), and get_similar_threats (similarity) by emphasizing 'recently published' ordering.

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 and parameter docs explain pagination mechanics (limit, offset, cursor, has_more, next_cursor). It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over search_threats vs get_threat, but the 'most recently published' framing and pagination semantics give clear usage context without naming alternatives.

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