urlhaus_lookup_tag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states the tool searches an external service and returns URLs matching a tag, which implies a read-only lookup. However, it does not mention output format, pagination, data freshness, rate limits, or any caveats about the 'all' claim.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then gives illustrative tag examples, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 simple one-parameter read-only lookup, the description is largely complete: it names the source, the query criterion, and the expected result type (malicious URLs). It lacks an explicit return-shape description, but given low complexity and no output schema, this is a minor gap rather than a major omission.

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 fully documents the single 'tag' parameter with type and examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds a few additional tag examples but no new semantic 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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('URLhaus'), and a precise scope ('all malicious URLs associated with a malware tag'). It also provides concrete tag examples, making the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from related URL/host lookups like urlhaus_lookup_url and urlhaus_lookup_host.

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 the tool is for querying by a malware tag to retrieve malicious URLs, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over similar sibling tools such as threatfox_search_tag or bazaar_search_tag. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.

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