urlscan_search

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, requires authentication (despite api_key parameter), rate limits, pagination, or return format. No annotations are provided to fill this gap.

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 extremely concise at 4 words, but it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. It is not well-structured as it lacks any elaboration on parameters or behavior.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (including an optional API key) and no output schema, the description fails to provide essential context about usage, input formats, or expected results. It is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter details in the description, the meaning of 'q', 'size', and 'api_key' is entirely inferred from their names. The agent receives no additional semantics beyond the schema structure.

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 clearly states 'Search urlscan.io scan results,' which specifies the verb (search) and resource (urlscan.io scan results). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like urlscan_get_result (get a specific result) and urlscan_scan (initiate a scan), though it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., urlscan_get_result or urlscan_scan). There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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