zins_get_threat_class

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces 'Read-only analytics'. It adds behavioral details like 'One row per threat class' and explains empty results, going beyond the annotation to clarify output behavior.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus one extra line. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose and the read-only nature. No redundant information.

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?

While the description conveys the output structure and window constraint, it lacks coverage of other parameters (e.g., limit, traffic_unit) and does not fully detail the return format for a tool without output schema. Adequate but incomplete.

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?

With only 14% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the time window constraint (7-14 days) and implying the use of start/end parameters. However, parameters like limit and traffic_unit remain unexplained, leaving gaps.

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 specifies the action (Get), resource (threat-class distribution), and lists the three classes (Virus/Spyware, Advanced, Behavioral). It distinguishes from siblings like zins_get_cyber_incidents by focusing on aggregated threat classes.

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 states the tool is for 'Read-only analytics' and imposes a window constraint ('7- or 14-day historical interval'), giving clear context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention alternatives among siblings.

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