fofa_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing authentication requirements (FOFA_EMAIL and FOFA_KEY environment variables), query syntax rules, and operator behaviors. It doesn't mention rate limits, pagination details, or error handling, but provides substantial operational context.

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 efficiently structured with zero wasted sentences. It opens with the core purpose, then provides prerequisites, syntax rules, operators, and examples in a logical flow. Every sentence serves a clear informational purpose.

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 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides strong context about authentication, query syntax, and examples. It lacks details about response format, error conditions, and rate limits, but covers the essential operational aspects well given the structured data available.

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 adds some value by providing query syntax examples and operator explanations that complement the schema, but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what's already documented in the input schema properties.

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 specific action ('Search') and resource ('FOFA cyberspace mapping platform'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like hunter_search and quake_search by specifying the FOFA platform. It provides a complete functional overview in the opening sentence.

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 context about when to use this tool (searching the FOFA platform) and mentions environment variable prerequisites, but doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tools or specify when NOT to use it. The context is sufficient but lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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