otx_search_actor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful insight by stating that IOCs are deduplicated across pulses and that the result includes C2 IPs, domains, hashes, and MITRE techniques. It does not mention limitations like pagination or errors, but the key behavioral traits are clear.

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 core sentence is dense and front-loaded, efficiently covering scope, deduplication, and output categories. The 'ELITE:' prefix is a non-functional label that adds no information, preventing a perfect score.

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 absence of an output schema, the description does well to specify the return categories (C2 IPs, domains, hashes, MITRE techniques). It could also address edge cases such as no results or time range, but the core information an agent needs to invoke and interpret the tool 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% for the single parameter actor_name, including concrete examples. The description reinforces the actor-centric context but adds no additional syntactic or format guidance beyond the schema, so a 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search all OTX pulses attributed to a threat actor.' It also clarifies the tool's unique aggregation focus by mentioning deduplication and the return of full infrastructure, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like otx_pivot_ip or otx_pivot_hash.

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 usage context: use this when you need a threat actor's aggregated infrastructure from OTX pulses. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as otx_pivot_* or otx_get_pulse_iocs, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from sibling names.

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