search_malware

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool searches. It does not explain matching behavior, result ordering, whether results are read-only, or what output shape to expect. For an unannotated tool, this leaves important behavioral uncertainty.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word carries meaning, and it avoids restating details already present in the schema.

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 seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It does not mention pagination behavior, result format, or edge cases like alias matching, and an agent would need to infer too much about how the tool behaves beyond its basic search function.

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%, so parameter semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds little beyond the schema, though the phrase 'by name or alias' reinforces the meaning of the query parameter without providing new details.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search for malware families by name or alias.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools like search_threat_actor or search_vulnerability, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope exclusions.

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 name or alias' implies this tool is appropriate when the user has a malware name or alias in mind. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related search tools such as search_threat_intel or search_observable, and no exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.

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