search_software_toolkits

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains behavior: it searches and returns collections, with details on ordering and defaults. It does not mention rate limits or errors, but for a search tool this is reasonable.

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 (around 100 words) and well-structured with sections for purpose, modeling, ordering explanation, and Args/Returns. Every sentence is informative.

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?

For a simple search tool with 3 parameters, the description covers what it does, how to use parameters, and the return type. It lacks mention of pagination, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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?

The description adds significant value beyond the schema (0% coverage). It explains the query parameter required, limit default, order_by options with values and sorting syntax, vastly improving usability.

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 it searches software toolkits (collections) in Google Threat Intelligence. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the resource type and linking to get_collection_report for further 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 guidance on when to use (for searching software toolkits) and what to do next (use get_collection_report). It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, but the context implies differentiation from other search tools listed as siblings.

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