bazaarRecent

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a read-only behavior ('Get', 'Returns') and names the data source, which is useful. However, it does not specify any limitations, such as the meaning of 'recent', pagination, or rate limits. It adds some behavioral context beyond the schema but not extensive detail.

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 composed of two concise sentences with no redundant content. It is front-loaded with the primary action and directly supports the tool's function. Every word earns its place.

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's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains what the tool does. It communicates the core behavior and source. The lack of detail on 'recent' timeframe or result limits is a minor gap, but overall it is complete for a simple data-retrieval tool.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'selector', including a description and default value. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information, so it meets the baseline but does not go beyond what the schema offers.

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 ('Get') and identifies the resource ('recent malware samples from MalwareBazaar (abuse.ch)'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like bazaarHash and bazaarTag by focusing on 'recent' submissions. The second sentence reinforces the purpose.

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 ('recent malware samples'), but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives such as bazaarHash or bazaarTag. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusion criteria or comparative direction.

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