vx_underground_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that this searches a public index and returns matching papers, write-ups, and samples, but it omits details like rate limits, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, and result format.

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 concise and front-loaded, opening with the action and repository name. Each sentence contributes: source identification, return content, and recommended use case. No wasted words.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the key selection criteria: what is searched, what is returned, and when it is most appropriate. It could be more complete by noting output shape or any API limitations, but it is sufficient for basic invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context about the repository's content focus, but it does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the input schema already 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?

Description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Search VX-Underground' and explicitly enumerates what is returned (papers, write-ups, malware samples). It also differentiates from siblings by naming the unique repository and its focus on technical malware analysis and source code.

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?

Provides clear use-case context with 'Best for technical malware analysis, source code, and underground research.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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