lc_search_ioc

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

No annotations provided. The description only hints at a read operation ('search') but does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or behavioral traits like case sensitivity or wildcard support, which are present in the schema but not explained.

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?

A single sentence, no wasted words. Efficient but could afford an extra sentence to clarify key parameters or expected use without becoming verbose.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is critically insufficient. The agent lacks understanding of return values, parameter roles, and how 'prevalence or locations' manifests in results.

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%, and the tool description adds zero information about any of the 8 parameters (oid, obj_type, obj_name, info, limit, wildcards, per_object, case_sensitive). The agent cannot infer parameter meaning or usage from the description.

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 verb 'search' and the resource 'IOC/object', indicating it operates on a single IOC, differentiating from batch counterparts implicitly. However, the phrase 'Insight prevalence or locations' is somewhat vague, lacking concrete specificity about what exactly is returned.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lc_batch_search_iocs or lc_get_object_information. Missing prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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