threatfox_search_tag

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden itself. The verb 'Search' implies a non-mutating read operation, which is helpful, but the description does not disclose output format, pagination, exact-match behavior, or any rate-limit or authentication concerns. It is adequate for a simple search but lacks richer behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, target resource, filtering dimension, and examples efficiently. 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?

For a tool with one documented parameter and no output schema, this is minimally viable: the agent knows what to pass and roughly what will happen. However, the lack of any return-value description, usage alternatives, or edge-case behavior leaves some ambiguity. The simplicity of the tool prevents a lower score, but the description could still be more complete.

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 sole parameter with 100% coverage, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by providing concrete example tag values ('c2', 'loader', 'rat', 'ransomware'), which help the agent understand what kind of string to pass. It does not specify case sensitivity or accepted format, but the examples improve semantic clarity.

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 action ('Search ThreatFox IOCs') and the key dimension ('by tag'), with concrete examples like 'c2', 'loader', 'rat', and 'ransomware'. It clearly conveys the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as threatfox_search_ioc or threatfox_search_family.

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 usage is implied: use this when you want ThreatFox IOCs matching a known tag. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related tools like threatfox_search_ioc, threatfox_search_family, or bazaar_search_tag, nor are any exclusions or alternative conditions stated.

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