urlhausTag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the search action and does not mention whether it is read-only, any rate limits, output format, or what kind of data is returned. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation fallback.

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 immediately states the verb and resource. It includes examples without unnecessary detail. 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?

For a simple tool with one fully described parameter, the description is minimally viable. However, there is no output schema and no mention of return values, pagination, or limits, leaving some ambiguity about what the agent will receive. It does not fully compensate for the lack of structured output metadata.

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 describes the 'tag' parameter, but the description adds concrete examples ('Emotet', 'Dridex', 'elf') that clarify the expected value format. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand what a valid tag looks like.

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 action ('Search'), the resource ('URLhaus (abuse.ch) entries'), and the specific filter ('by tag') with examples. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like urlhausLookup or bazaarTag by explicitly naming the URLhaus service and the tag criterion.

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: if you want to search URLhaus entries by tag, this is the tool. However, no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions are provided. The description does not mention that for other services (e.g., ThreatFox) you would use a different tool.

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