fbi_flash_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond basic search semantics by stating the feed is cached for 1 hour and that the tool extracts MITRE techniques, CVEs, and attributed actors. This is useful operational context even though it does not detail rate limits or output shape.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by source clarification, extraction behavior, and caching. Every sentence adds value and the total length is proportionate to the tool's simplicity.

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 and a clear source attribution, the description covers the important operational details: what is searched, what is extracted, and caching behavior. It does not describe result format, but no output schema exists and the description's extraction note partially 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents query and limit. The description reinforces the query parameter by listing example search categories (actor, CVE, malware family, topic), but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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') and resource ('FBI / IC3 RSS feed'), and specifies the searchable entities (keyword, CVE, actor name, malware family). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like anssi_search, cisa_search_advisories, or jpcert_search by naming the exact data source.

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 makes clear this tool is for FBI flash alerts and IC3 public service announcements, which tells an agent when to pick it over other threat-feed searches. It does not explicitly state 'use X instead when...', but the source attribution provides strong contextual guidance.

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