Search Threat Actors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the subscription requirement and lists return fields, providing some behavioral context without contradictions.

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?

Two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, filters, prerequisite, and return fields with minimal waste. Could be slightly more structured, but overall concise.

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?

No output schema, but description lists return fields. Parameter coverage is complete. The description adequately covers purpose, filters, and a prerequisite, though lacks explicit examples or pagination notes.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description only repeats a subset of filter parameters (name, alias, nation-state, motivation) and adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. It omits parameters like tool, limit, sector, malware.

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 threat actors by name, alias, nation-state, or motivation, and lists the return fields. It distinguishes from siblings like search_detections by focusing on actors, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 mentions a required subscription tier (Purple tier) as a prerequisite. It lists filter criteria implying when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternative tools.

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