bazaarRecent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful requirement of ABUSECH_AUTH_KEY, but says nothing about rate limits, pagination, or how many samples are returned.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose. The middle sentence ('Returns the most recently submitted samples') partially restates the opening, a minor redundancy, but overall it reads efficiently.

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 read-only tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose and auth. However, the selector's valid options and the return size remain unexplained, which matters given the vague schema description.

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?

Only one parameter (selector) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema baseline applies. The description adds nothing about the selector's valid values beyond the schema's 'default: time', leaving its meaning ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recent malware samples from MalwareBazaar'), with the 'recent' scope distinguishing it from the bazaarHash and bazaarTag siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it's clear but not fully differentiated in text.

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 says what the tool returns but never states when to use it versus bazaarHash or bazaarTag, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the auth key. Usage is only implied by the 'recent' framing.

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