search_software_toolkits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully cover behavioral traits. It does not mention rate limits, authentication needs (the api_key param is not explained), or any side effects. The only behavioral clue is that it returns a list of collections.

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 well-organized with a clear header, explanation of sorting, and an args section. It is concise (about 150 words) and easy to scan.

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 the complexity (4 params, no annotations) and presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context for basic use, including the relationship to get_collection_report. However, it lacks details on pagination, error handling, or the structure of returned collections beyond 'list of threats'.

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?

The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds meaning for query, limit, and order_by (including sorting syntax), but the api_key parameter is completely undocumented. This partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 for software toolkits in the Google Threat Intelligence platform, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_malware_families or search_threat_actors by specifying the resource type.

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?

Provides guidance on using get_collection_report after retrieval and explains sorting with order_by. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative selection criteria.

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