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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the query language and shows an example call, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication specifics, or what data is returned beyond 'indicators.' This is a moderate addition beyond annotations.

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 two sentences plus an example, with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second explains the query language, and the example illustrates usage. It is appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what it searches, how the query language works, and provides an example. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, so no further details are essential. The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and usage context.

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 baseline is 3. The description's example demonstrates how to use q, limit, and _apiKey, but the schema already provides descriptions and examples for each parameter. The description does not add significant new semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers.

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's purpose: 'Search Pulsedive threat DB with a query.' It specifies the resource (Pulsedive threat DB), the verb (Search), and the scope (indicators matching criteria like type, risk, feed, or threat). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like pulsedive_indicator, which presumably looks up a single indicator.

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 communicates the intended use case ('find indicators matching criteria') and provides a concrete example, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, such as using pulsedive_indicator for a known indicator. This leaves usage guidance at an implied level.

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