search_threat_actor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool 'searches' by name or alias; it does not disclose whether matching is exact, partial, case-insensitive, alias-aware beyond the query string, or what the results contain. The agent is left without important behavioral context.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool and front-loads the core action and target.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling search tools, the description is too thin to fully orient an agent. It does not mention what kind of results are returned, how to interpret the output, when to prefer this tool, or any limitations. The agent must rely entirely on the schema and tool name.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the description does not need to restate details. It does add mild value by clarifying that the query parameter refers to a name/alias, but it does not provide any additional semantics beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('threat actors and APT groups') along with the search key ('by name or alias'). It is easy to tell what the tool targets, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling search_* tools, particularly search_threat_intel, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_threat_intel, search_campaign, or lookup_ioc. There are no exclusions, no context about when this is the right choice, and no mention of what makes it distinct among the many search tools.

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