Threat Bundle

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 clear. The description adds value by explaining the bundled nature ('combines threat detail + simulations + IOCs + transcripts + flat MITRE arrays') and that it is a single response. No contradictions; the description enriches transparency 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the key purpose ('One-shot threat intelligence bundle'), followed by specific content details and usage advice. Every sentence is essential; there is no wasted or redundant language.

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 tool's complexity (bundles multiple data types), the description adequately explains what is returned (threat detail, simulations, IOCs, transcripts, MITRE arrays). Annotations cover safety, schema covers parameters, and no output schema is needed as the description clarifies the high-level response contents. No gaps in information.

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%, with both parameters (threat_id, include) fully described in the input schema. The description mentions 'threat_id' implicitly but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 that the tool provides a 'one-shot threat intelligence bundle' that combines multiple data types (threat detail, simulations, IOCs, transcripts, MITRE arrays) in a single response. It explicitly distinguishes itself by noting it 'replaces 4 separate tool calls,' making its purpose distinct from siblings like get_threat, search_iocs, etc.

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 gives direct usage guidance: 'Use instead of calling get_threat + get_threat_simulations + search_iocs + get_threat_transcripts individually.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and what alternatives it replaces, meeting the highest standard for this dimension.

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