search_infrastructure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that this is a search; it does not describe read-only semantics, result format, pagination behavior, data scope, or potential caveats. The term 'search' weakly implies a read operation, but that remains implicit.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with useful examples and no filler. It is concise and scannable, though it could have included a brief routing or behavior sentence without much cost.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling search tools, the description is too thin to fully equip an agent. It lacks return-value expectations, search semantics, and any differentiation from the two dozen sibling tools, so an agent would have to infer or inspect other clues.

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 all six parameters (query, limit, offset, labels, created_before, created_after) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the general subject, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names the verb 'Search' and the resource 'infrastructure' with concrete examples (C2 servers, hosting, botnets), making the tool's subject clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools, but the resource type is reasonably distinguishable.

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 implies when to use the tool — when an agent needs to find infrastructure-related entities. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer a sibling search tool such as search_threat_actor or search_malware, and no exclusions or alternative routing.

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