Threat Intel You.com Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds minimal extra behavior insight (current, web/news) but does not discuss output format, pagination, or rate limits. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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 sentence stating purpose is concise and front-loaded. It wastes no words, but could benefit from a brief usage hint. Still, for a simple tool with rich schema, this is appropriately sized.

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 an output schema and fully described parameters, the description could rely on those, but it offers no context about how the search integrates into threat intelligence workflows or what types of queries are most effective. It is minimally sufficient for a search tool but does not elaborate on limitations or special behaviors.

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 defines all parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond saying it searches for current web or news, which only loosely relates to the freshness parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Search' and the resource 'You.com', specifying 'web or news context' which is clear. It distinguishes from siblings implicitly since no other search tool exists among them, but it could be more explicit about threat intelligence relevance.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives or prerequisites. The phrase 'current web or news context' implies freshness but doesn't explicitly recommend this tool for threat intel searches or mention 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.