search_threat_reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains that threat reports are collections and returns a list, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements (the `api_key` parameter), rate limits, pagination details, or any potential side effects. This is sufficient for a search tool but lacks depth.

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-structured with a clear hierarchy: purpose, context, usage details, parameters. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy. While slightly verbose, each sentence adds information. Minor tightening could remove 'Google Threat Intelligence provides...' but it provides valuable context.

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 presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the main workflow (search then fetch report). However, the missing `api_key` explanation and lack of pagination details reduce completeness for a tool with four parameters and no other documentation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain all parameters. It adequately describes `query`, `limit` (with default), and `order_by` (with syntax and default). However, the `api_key` parameter is not mentioned, leaving a gap. For the covered parameters, it adds value beyond the schema by explaining usage.

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's function as searching threat reports in Google Threat Intelligence, explaining that threat reports are modeled as collections. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the focus on reports and noting the follow-up use of `get_collection_report` for full details.

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 provides clear usage guidance, including how to use `order_by` with examples and the default sorting. It implicitly tells when to use this tool (to find threat reports) and what to do next (use `get_collection_report`). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools like `search_threats` or `search_threat_actors`.

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