threatfox_search_ioc

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the key output (confidence scores and malware family attribution), but it does not mention rate limits, authentication, error behavior for unknown IOCs, or result limits. For a read-only search this is acceptable but minimal.

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 with no filler; the action and accepted values are front-loaded, and the return value is stated in the second sentence.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns. However, it omits any guidance on choosing among the sibling ThreatFox/Bazaar search tools, so an agent may not know when this is the right call.

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 schema already documents the ioc parameter at 100% coverage, but the description adds specificity by enumerating MD5 and SHA256 alongside the schema's generic 'hash' and clarifies acceptable formats. This is a modest value-add over the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('ThreatFox'), and the accepted IOC types (IP:port, domain, URL, MD5, SHA256). It also names the return value, making it clear this is an IOC-value lookup rather than a family or tag 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus threatfox_search_family or threatfox_search_tag; the distinction is only implied by the IOC-value parameter and sibling names. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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