hunter_search

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 does well by mentioning the authentication requirement (HUNTER_KEY), cost implications (extra credits for queries beyond 30 days), and query syntax rules. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the parameters, or error handling.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with essential information. It efficiently covers authentication, query syntax, operators, examples, asset types, and time filtering in a single paragraph. Every sentence adds value, though some information about parameters is redundant with the schema.

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 8 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no output schema or annotations, the description provides adequate context about authentication, query syntax, and cost implications. However, it doesn't describe the return format, result structure, or error scenarios, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand the full tool behavior.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining query syntax with examples and mentioning time range filtering implications, but doesn't provide significant additional parameter semantics beyond what's already well-documented in the schema descriptions.

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 searches the Hunter cyberspace mapping platform with specific query syntax. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning Hunter specifically, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from fofa_search or quake_search in terms of when to use each platform.

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 mentions the HUNTER_KEY environment variable requirement and provides query syntax examples, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling fofa_search or quake_search tools. It provides some context about time range filtering and credit consumption, but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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