search_threat_actors

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It explains ordering behavior and defaults but does not cover pagination, rate limits, or return format details. Adequate for a search tool but could be more explicit.

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 moderately concise with clear sections: main purpose, argument details, and return type. No unnecessary sentences, though it could be slightly tighter by removing the redundant default mention in both prose and args.

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?

With an output schema present, the return description is sufficient. The description covers the search functionality, ordering, limit, and post-usage steps. Missing pagination details or behavior when results exceed limit, but overall adequate for the complexity.

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 compensates thoroughly. It explains the query parameter, limit default, and order_by values ('relevance', 'creation_date') along with usage of '+' and '-' for sorting direction, which the schema omits.

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 threat actors in the Google Threat Intelligence platform, explains that threat actors are modeled as collections, and distinguishes from siblings by noting that results can be processed further with get_collection_report. The verb 'search' is specific, and the resource is well-defined.

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 says to use get_collection_report after obtaining collections, providing sequential guidance. However, it does not compare with sibling search tools like search_threats or search_malware_families, so some ambiguity remains on when to use this specific tool.

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