fofa_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it runs exactly one search page (not automatic pagination) and that queries from fofa_rules should be pasted verbatim, which is informative but not extensive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the routing rule. No filler or redundant material; 'read-only' is the only duplication of annotation, but it's one word.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and many siblings, the description should explain parameter effects and when to prefer fofa_search_next or fofa_icon_search. It only addresses the fofa_rules case and leaves pagination and alternative search modes unspecified. Output schema exists, which covers return values, but input side is incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at the query parameter ('paste its query verbatim'). It doesn't explain full, size, or fields semantics, leaving the agent to guess their meaning. This falls short of the requirement to cover 4 parameters.

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 specifies the action ('Run') and resource ('FOFA search page'), and explicitly scopes to a single page. The conditional routing to fofa_rules distinguishes it from that sibling, though it doesn't enumerate other search variants (icon/host/stats).

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?

It gives an explicit when-not: if the user named a product/OA/VPN, call fofa_rules first and paste the query verbatim. This is a clear alternative/pre-route. However, it doesn't mention other related tools like fofa_search_next for pagination or fofa_icon_search for image-based search, so guidance is partial.

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