google_tag_search

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

The description adds useful behavioral detail by stating that MITRE TTPs, CVEs, and IOC markers are extracted automatically, which is beyond the schema. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose result format, pagination behavior, or failure modes.

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 a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the key extraction behavior without any filler or repetition.

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 low-complexity search tool with two fully documented parameters, the description is largely complete. It explains the source, the scope, and the automatic extraction behavior, though it does not explicitly describe the return structure since no output schema is present.

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 'query' and 'limit' parameters. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('Google TAG blog'), and a specific scope ('government-backed threat actor and exploit intelligence'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling threat-intel searches like anssi_search or cisa_search_advisories by source and content focus.

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 it clear this tool is for searching Google TAG blog content, which gives an agent enough context to select it over other source-specific search tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the source and scope are unambiguous.

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