Search IOCs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe query operation. The description adds that it searches for specific IOC types but does not provide additional behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, data freshness). Since annotations cover the essential behavioral traits, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise at only 13 words across two sentences. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately clarifies the scope. Every word adds value; no redundancy.

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 3 parameters all described in the schema, and annotations cover behavioral traits, the description is mostly complete for a search tool. However, it lacks any mention of output format or pagination (since there is no output schema). This is a minor gap but the description still provides sufficient context for typical use.

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 the schema itself documents all parameters. The description mentions 'Filter by IOC type category' which maps to the 'type' enum, but does not elaborate beyond what the schema provides. No additional context is given for 'query' or 'limit'. Baseline of 3 is correct.

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 the tool searches indicators of compromise and lists the categories (IPs, domains, hashes, URLs, behavioral indicators). The verb 'search' and resource 'IOCs' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_detections' which searches detections, not IOCs.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool to search for IOCs. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like 'search_detections' or 'get_threat_intelligence'. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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