bazaar_search_family

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention return fields, which is useful, but it claims to return 'all samples' while the schema's limit parameter caps results at 100, making the description misleading about actual scope. It also omits pagination and limit behavior.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the return-value sentence earns its place by compensating for the missing output schema.

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 two-parameter search tool with fully documented schema, the description is mostly adequate: it states the resource, the query concept, and the return fields. However, the 'all samples' wording conflicts with the limit parameter, and there is no guidance on how this relates to sibling family/tag/hash search tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no significant semantic detail beyond restating the 'malware family' concept, which keeps it at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), names the resource ('MalwareBazaar'), and defines the scope ('all samples belonging to a malware family'). It also states the return payload (hashes, imphashes, file metadata), which differentiates it from sibling tools like bazaar_lookup_hash or bazaar_search_tag.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need samples by malware family. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the choice from the tool name and sibling list.

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