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 also says 'Read-only analytics,' but it adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: one row per threat class with an aggregated total, and empty result semantics meaning no threats were detected. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first sentence, then adds only high-value behavioral details in three short sentences. There is no redundancy or filler beyond the acceptable 'Read-only analytics' marker.

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 read-only analytics tool with no output schema and seven parameters, the description gives a reasonable overall picture: it specifies output granularity, empty-result semantics, and the supported window length. However, it does not fully describe the input parameters or return field names, and the lack of output schema makes the description carry more responsibility than it fully satisfies.

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 14%, so the description must compensate for the seven parameters. It adds the key semantic that the window must be 7 or 14 days, but it does not clarify the meaning of limit, traffic_unit, start_time/end_time units, or how they interact with start_days_ago/end_days_ago. Most parameter semantics remain underspecified.

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 names a specific resource ('threat-class distribution'), enumerates the relevant classes (Virus/Spyware, Advanced, Behavioral), and states that the result is read-only analytics. It clearly distinguishes this from other 'get threat' siblings such as zins_get_threat_super_categories by focusing on per-class aggregated totals.

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 provides clear usage context: it is a read-only analytics tool returning one row per threat class, and it imposes an explicit time-window constraint ('must be a 7- or 14-day historical interval'). It does not list alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops one step short of full guidance.

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