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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool returns comprehensive reference content about the query language, which is the essential behavior for a documentation tool. However, it does not describe the output format, length, or whether the tool is purely informational, though those are largely inferable from its purpose.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the tool's scope and ends with a clear usage directive. There is no filler or redundancy, and every phrase earns its place.

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 zero-parameter reference tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool is, what content it provides, and when it should be consumed. There are no missing operational details that an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully describes the input surface. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds appropriate context by explaining what the reference contains instead of needing to document parameters.

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 this is a reference for the Sift query language, enumerating the exact content types it covers (fields, indicators, windows, operators, patterns). It also includes a directive ('Read this before writing a query') that tells the agent what the tool is for, distinguishing it from action-oriented siblings like run_scan and delete_scan.

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 explicit usage context: read this before writing a query. This is a clear instruction on when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly exclude other tools or list alternatives, but given the tool's nature as a reference, the timing guidance is sufficient.

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