Get Threat

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile fully. The description adds meaningful content detail (what sections the detail includes) and the ID format example, which provides useful scoping context beyond annotations. It does not describe pagination/limits, but for a single-record fetch with an existing output schema this is adequate.

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 states purpose and content; the second provides an explicit cross-reference to the enrichment sibling. Highly efficient and front-loaded with the core function.

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?

For a single-ID lookup tool with an output schema present, 100% parameter schema coverage, and strong readOnly/destructive annotations, the description is complete. It names all returned content categories and directs enrichment needs elsewhere. Nothing material is omitted for an agent to select and invoke this correctly.

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%, with the sole parameter 'id' clearly documented as a Threat ID with an example. The description reinforces the ID format with the example TL-2026-0042, but adds no material meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully handles parameter documentation.

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 tool fetches full detail for a single threat by ID, listing specific content areas (overview, MITRE techniques, IOCs, detections, timeline, tags). It distinguishes itself from sibling get_threat_enrichment by explicitly directing enrichment-specific data elsewhere.

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?

Provides an explicit alternative: 'For that threat's malware families, tools, targeted sectors/regions, affected OS and campaigns, call get_threat_enrichment.' This clearly delineates when to use this tool vs the enrichment sibling, which is strong exclusionary guidance among many get_* siblings.

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