fingerprint_search_tool

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

With no annotations, the description discloses parameter constraints (fp_type counts, date format, default limit) and implies a read operation via examples, though it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or auth requirements.

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 combines purpose, examples, and parameter details in a single paragraph; it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for easier parsing.

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?

Covers purpose, parameters, and examples adequately for a search tool with an output schema, but lacks details on pagination, result ordering, or rate limits.

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%, but the description explains fp_type options with counts, specifies since/until format, and illustrates fingerprint via examples, adding significant meaning beyond schema fields.

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 explicitly states the tool searches honeypot activity by fingerprint types (TLS, HTTP, SSH) and provides example queries, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on other data domains.

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?

Example user queries and parameter details (fp_type with event counts, ISO-8601 format) provide clear usage context, but no explicit exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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