misp_search_attributes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions speed but does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., list of attributes, count), authentication needs, or side effects. There is no behavioral context beyond the purpose.

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 two sentences, highly concise, and front-loaded with the purpose. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, output format, and error handling information. The use case comparison is helpful but insufficient for full agent understanding.

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% and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (value, type, category, tag, limit). The description adds no meaning beyond what the parameter names imply, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance on how to use each parameter.

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 it searches MISP attributes (IOCs) and explicitly distinguishes from searching events by claiming it's faster for specific IOC type/value pairs. It differentiates from sibling tools like misp_search_events.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('when you have a specific IOC type/value pair') and implies when not to use it (for broader events search) by referencing the alternative approach.

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