pulsedive_indicator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output (risk level, threats, feeds, properties) and implies a read-only lookup, but does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. This is adequate for a simple lookup but lacks richer behavioral context.

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 that front-load the action and specify the resource types and output. No wasted words or irrelevant details.

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 simple one-parameter lookup, the description is reasonably complete: it states the purpose, accepted input types, and expected output categories. The lack of an output schema is compensated by listing return values, though it could benefit from a note about when to use this tool as opposed to sibling Pulsedive tools.

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 the description fully explaining the 'indicator' parameter. The tool description repeats the same information (IP, domain, URL, or hash) without adding new semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('look up') and specifies the resource types (IP, domain, URL, hash) and return aspects (risk level, threats, feeds, properties). It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pulsedive_search or pulsedive_explore, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus pulsedive_search or pulsedive_explore. The description does not mention any alternatives, exclusions, or context that would help an agent choose it over similar tools.

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