search_malware_families

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains that malware families are collections and returns a list of collections. It also covers default behavior for parameters. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leading to a moderate score.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose, then provides context about collections, followed by parameter details, and ends with return type. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 and numerous siblings, the description is complete. It specifies the return type as a list of collections and links to a related tool for further actions, covering the essential context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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%, so the description adds significant value. It explains each parameter: query (search query), limit (limit number, default 10), and order_by (sorting with +/- prefix, default 'relevance-'). This is far beyond the bare schema, which only provides types and defaults.

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 purpose: 'Search malware families in the Google Threat Intelligence platform.' It further explains that malware families are collections and directs users to a related tool for full reports, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like search_threats.

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 context, explaining that results are collections and suggesting a follow-up tool (get_collection_report). It also details sorting options and defaults. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like search_threats or search_campaigns, which would improve guidance.

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