search_threat_intel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying the return type ('JSON array of threat intelligence objects') and the region default behavior ('Defaults to TAEGIS_ENVIRONMENT or "charlie"'). While it doesn't discuss pagination or rate limits, this is a simple search tool and the described behavior is adequate.

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 well-structured, with a single-purpose opening sentence and organized Args/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or extraneous 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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool, the description covers the essential context: what it searches, how parameters behave, and what is returned. The presence of an output schema means the description needn't list fields. It lacks explicit mention of potential pagination or permissions, but these are not critical for basic usage, making it nearly complete.

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 schema has zero description coverage (only titles), so the description fully compensates. The Args section explains that 'query' is an 'indicator value or free-text search' and 'region' is 'Taegis environment/region' with an explicit default. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with 'Search Taegis threat intelligence (IOCs, hashes, IPs, domains …)', which clearly states the tool's specific verb and resource. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_alerts and search_events by focusing on threat intelligence rather than alerts or investigations.

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 implies usage by naming the types of indicators (IOCs, hashes, IPs, domains) and the platform (Taegis), which gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'for security events use search_events', so it falls short of a 5.

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