fingerprint_search_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It lacks details on behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or whether results are real-time. The output schema covers return format, but the description does not mention it.

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 compact and front-loaded, packing purpose, usage triggers, and parameter details in a single paragraph. It could be more structured (e.g., listing fp_types), but it is efficient.

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 of 5 parameters and no annotations, the description provides enough context to use the tool, covering key parameters and usage scenarios. It does not explain the limit parameter or result format, but the output schema compensates.

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%. The description adds value for fp_type (with examples and counts), since, and until (ISO-8601 format), but does not explain the 'fingerprint' or 'limit' parameters, leaving gaps.

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 honeypot activity by TLS, HTTP, or SSH fingerprint, with specific user query examples. It distinguishes from siblings like ioc_lookup_tool by focusing on fingerprints.

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 explicitly provides usage triggers via example queries and explains fp_type options with event counts. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the examples cover common use cases.

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