intelx_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema behavior: this is an asynchronous initiation returning a search ID, and it requires INTELX_API_KEY for auth.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the return contract and auth requirement. Nothing is wasted and no clause is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly discloses the return value (search ID) and the async follow-up path, plus the API key prerequisite. It is nearly complete for a 2-param tool, though the absence of any when-not-to-use note leaves a small gap.

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 both parameters (term, max_results) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (Initiate) and resource (search on IntelligenceX) plus the data domain (leaked data, dark web). Implicitly separates itself from intelx_search_results by stating it returns a search ID rather than results, though it never names that sibling directly.

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 phrase 'Returns a search ID to retrieve results' implies the two-step async workflow, which is useful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against alternatives like intelx_phonebook or the sibling result tools.

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