urlscan_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about anonymous vs api_key access, result caps, pagination, or what a 'size' limit does.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is undersized for a search tool whose query language is non-obvious. Conciseness is achieved at the cost of the guidance an agent actually needs.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain query syntax, result shape/size limits, and API key behavior; it explains none of them. Annotations cover safety but not the operational details an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for all three parameters and fails: q's query syntax (urlscan.io uses Lucene-style field queries), size's default/maximum, and the api_key's role are all unexplained. Only the word 'search' implicitly hints that q is a query string.

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) and resource (urlscan.io scan results), so an agent knows this is the retrieval side of the urlscan family. It does not explicitly position itself against siblings like urlscan_scan (submission) or urlscan_get_result (single result fetch), leaving that differentiation to the names alone.

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 statement of when to use this versus urlscan_scan or urlscan_get_result, and no mention of prerequisites (API key needed for higher quotas, rate limits, pagination limits). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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