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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the returned summary fields (affected vendors, CVE counts, severity) and the data source (public-domain CISA CSAF), which are not visible in the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the core action, then cover return contents, sibling routing, and data source with no filler. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 read-only search tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the filter options, result summary, full-detail fallback, and data licensing context. It could mention pagination or ordering behavior, but the provided information is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 83%, so the schema already documents vendor, keyword, min_cvss, advisory_kind, and published_after. The description mostly restates these filter dimensions without adding new syntax or format details, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage but does not go beyond it.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a precise resource ('CISA ICS/OT security advisories'), and enumerates the advisory families (ICSA / ICSMA / ICSV) plus filter dimensions. This clearly distinguishes the tool from generic siblings like search or search_cve by tying it to CISA OT advisory 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 explicitly routes agents to get_ics_advisory for full details, establishing that this tool returns search summaries rather than complete records. It does not explicitly state when not to use siblings like search_cve or search_by_product, but the advisory-specific scope provides enough situational context.

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