search_sighting

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

With no annotations, description carries the burden. It adds a useful definition of 'sighting' and implies a read-only search operation, but it does not disclose behavior such as fuzzy vs exact matching, ordering, result format, or whether partial matches are returned.

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 entire description is a single sentence, front-loads the action, and wastes no words. The parenthetical definition adds meaning without bloating the text.

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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool, the description and schema are mostly adequate, but there is no indication of return structure or match behavior, especially since no output schema is present. An agent could call it correctly but might not know what the response represents beyond the resource name.

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 query and limit parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), names the exact resource ('sightings'), and clarifies what a sighting is ('detection events where indicators were observed'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling search tools like search_observable or search_threat_intel.

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 given about when to use this tool vs siblings such as search_observable or lookup_ioc. The description implies searching sightings by keyword, but there are no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or search-context examples.

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