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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are Markdown-formatted, includes a summary, and that the tool is a search (implying read-only). It provides useful behavioral context such as output format and usage, though it doesn't mention rate limits, pagination, or auth requirements, which are less critical for a search tool.

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 well-structured with clear subheadings (What this tool does, When to use, Inputs, Outputs, LLM usage guidelines). Every sentence contributes useful information—no fluff or redundancy. Despite its length, it is organized and front-loaded with a clear opening statement.

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?

With only one simple parameter and an output schema present, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage, inputs, outputs, and LLM guidelines, including how to combine with sibling tools. The description fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its results.

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 covers the 'query' parameter, but the description adds more semantic value by describing it as a 'free-text search term' and expanding examples to include product names, vendors, and keywords. This goes beyond the schema's brief enumeration, aiding the agent in understanding the parameter's flexibility.

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 tool performs a full-text vulnerability search in SecDB, explicitly listing what it searches across (CVE entries, advisories, exploit references, product/vendor data). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vulnerability_info or vulnerability_score, which target specific aspects of vulnerability data.

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 includes a dedicated 'When to use this tool' section with example user queries and states to use it instead of assuming whether a CVE/advisory/exploit exists. It also mentions combining with other tools for deeper analysis, but it does not explicitly name when not to use this tool or directly contrast it with specific siblings like vulnerability_info.

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