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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds the return field list and the matching behavior (title/description only), which adds some value beyond annotations but doesn't describe pagination or result limits beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences, zero wasted words. The description front-loads the core purpose, lists return fields compactly, and wraps up with a critical exclusion note. Every sentence earns its place with substantive content.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description covers purpose, exclusions, return fields, and behavioral nuance (title/description matching) — quite complete for a read-only search tool with good annotations and full schema coverage. Minor gap: no mention of result ordering or date scoping, but this is well-covered overall.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 3 parameters (query, page, limit). The description adds the crucial semantic context that query matches titles/descriptions rather than indicator values, which is meaningful. However, it doesn't add format or type details beyond the schema, landing at the baseline 3.

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+resource ('Search OTX threat-intel pulses') with concrete search terms ('campaign, malware family or actor name') and even provides examples ('ransomware', 'APT29'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like lookup_indicator and get_pulse by specifying the keyword-based search scope.

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 states when to use this tool (keyword search on pulse titles/descriptions) and explicitly when NOT to use it — for bare indicator values (IP, domain, hash, CVE), directing the agent to lookup_indicator as the alternative. This is fully explicit with both when and when-not guidance.

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