malwarebytes_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that the tool automatically extracts MITRE TTPs, CVEs, actors, and malware families, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple search. It does not mention output format, pagination, or rate limits, but for a read-only search tool these gaps are minor.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The first sentence covers what the tool searches and why, and the second adds the automatic extraction value. Every part earns its place.

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?

Given the tool is a simple two-parameter search with no output schema or nested objects, the description provides adequate context: source, intent, and expected extraction results. It does not describe the return structure in detail, but that is not critical for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 query as a keyword/malware family/actor name and limit with defaults. The description adds context about extracted entities but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a precise resource ('Malwarebytes Labs threat intelligence blog'), with a clear purpose: malware analysis and threat research. It also names the extracted output (MITRE TTPs, CVEs, actors, malware families), which distinguishes it from generic blog searches and similar sibling tools like anssi_search or jpcert_search.

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 should be used to search Malwarebytes Labs content and when automatic extraction of threat intel entities is desired. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately among many search tools.

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