zins_get_cyber_incidents_by_threat_and_app

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only analytics.' It goes beyond annotations by describing the nested grouping structure ('THREAT_CATEGORY_ID × APP_ID') and the window constraint, adding valuable 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?

The description is concise with two paragraphs, front-loading the purpose and adding structural details. It uses formatting for clarity but is not overly verbose. The nesting explanation is efficient, though the second paragraph could be slightly more compact.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and annotations providing readOnlyHint, the description covers grouping and window constraints but omits details on parameter usage (e.g., limit, time parameter options, what 'entries' contains exactly). It provides sufficient context for basic understanding but lacks completeness for precise invocation.

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 only 17% (only 'query' parameter has a description). The description adds minimal parameter semantics: only the window constraint indirectly relates to start/end time parameters. It does not explain 'limit', the difference between 'start_time'/'end_time' vs 'start_days_ago'/'end_days_ago', or how to use 'start_days_ago' default of 16. The low schema coverage demands more parameter guidance.

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 retrieves cyber-security incidents correlated by threat category and application. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and distinct resource, differentiating it from siblings like 'zins_get_cyber_incidents' (ungrouped) and 'zins_get_cyber_incidents_by_location' (grouped by location).

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 explicitly mentions the tool is 'useful for finding the most-targeted apps,' implying use cases. It also specifies the required window constraint ('7- or 14-day historical interval'). However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, missing some guidance for alternatives.

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