threatfoxTag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any limitations, output format, pagination, or that the 'limit' parameter caps results. For a search tool, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the operation itself.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and provides useful examples without any redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with fully documented schema, the description adequately states the purpose. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it could do more to set expectations about the return format and result limits, making it minimally sufficient rather than 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% for both parameters (tag and limit), so the baseline is 3. The description's examples ('Cobalt Strike', 'Emotet') simply mirror the schema's own examples, adding little new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific action ('Search') on a specific resource ('ThreatFox IOCs') with a precise qualifier ('by tag'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like threatfoxSearch or threatfoxGetIocs, which likely search by other criteria, and the examples reinforce the tag-based focus.

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 use when the agent has a known tag (e.g., 'Cobalt Strike'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as threatfoxSearch or threatfoxGetIocs. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative references are provided.

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