otx_search_pulses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the operation returns ('matching pulses with tags, malware families, and IOC counts'), adding useful context beyond the schema. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or pagination details, but for a simple search tool the behavioral traits are sufficiently transparent.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the purpose ('Search AlienVault OTX threat pulses by keyword') and followed by return-value details. No wasted words.

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 simple interface (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the core behavior and return contents. It could mention pagination or default limit behavior, but those are already in the schema, so the description is nearly complete.

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%; both 'query' and 'limit' have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('AlienVault OTX threat pulses'), and specifies the scope ('by keyword'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific IOC types (otx_ip, otx_domain, otx_hash, otx_cve).

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 phrase 'by keyword' clearly implies this is the text-search tool, distinct from IOC-specific lookups among the siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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