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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape of each result row (title, date, source, authors, tags, and IOC/YARA/MITRE counts) and the presence of outbound links, which tells an agent this is a lightweight summary endpoint. It omits pagination behavior (the limit/cursor interaction) and any maximum-result guidance.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the search capability and followed by the return shape and the sibling pointer. The enumerated return fields are somewhat verbose given an output schema exists, but they are informative rather than redundant filler.

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 nine-parameter, zero-required search tool with full schema coverage, full annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what can be filtered, what comes back, and where to go for full detail. Nothing essential is missing.

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 every one of the nine parameters is already documented with examples and formats in the schema. The description restates the filterable dimensions but adds no syntax, default, or combination semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (Rösti's threat-intelligence reports) and enumerates the filter dimensions: text, source, CVE, MITRE ATT&CK id, publication date. The closing sentence naming get_report makes the boundary between the two tools unambiguous without opening either schema.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use context (searching across many reports by filter) and explicitly routes to get_report for single-report details, which is the most likely confusion point. It does not address other plausible siblings such as find_related_reports or search_iocs, so the alternative coverage is partial rather than exhaustive.

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