search_software

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only defines scope ('MITRE ATT&CK software') and the search action, but does not describe match behavior, returned fields, result limits, or whether output is a list of software names, IDs, or profiles.

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 clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a tool with one parameter, though it sacrifices some potentially useful guidance in favor of brevity.

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 one-parameter search tool, the description plus schema provides enough to make a call, but gaps remain: there is no information about what the tool returns, how results are matched, or how to choose it over closely related siblings. The absence of an output schema and annotations raises the burden, which the description does not fully meet.

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?

The input schema already covers the single parameter with a description and examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds only the keyword concept, which largely restates the schema's 'Search query' description without introducing meaningful new semantic detail.

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'), a clear resource ('MITRE ATT&CK software'), and a mechanism ('by keyword'). It is distinct from sibling tools that search techniques or advisories, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools, such as search_mitre_techniques, malpedia_search, or get_software. The description implies keyword-based lookup but does not state exclusions or preferred contexts.

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