DayDayMap Search

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: automatic Base64 encoding of query, English double quotes case-insensitive, maximum results 10000, and a complete list of return fields and query syntax categories. There are no contradictions.

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 verbose (large list of fields and query syntax) but well-structured with categories. While the length is warranted for complexity, it could be trimmed by relying on the output schema for return fields. However, it remains readable.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, hundreds of fields) and existence of an output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: endpoint, encoding, query syntax, fields, pagination limits, and examples. It is fully sufficient for correct invocation.

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% but the description adds substantial value: it explains the Base64 encoding behavior, provides query examples, and details the query syntax categories not present in the schema. This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 DayDayMap assets via a specific API endpoint, and explicitly names the target platform. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., fofa, hunter, quake) by the unique asset source DayDayMap.

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 extensive usage guidance: query syntax categories, examples, case-insensitivity, double quotes requirement, Base64 encoding, logical AND with &&, and result limits. It lacks explicit comparison to siblings but implicitly defines its domain.

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