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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that include=["content"] inlines bodies and that filtering is by q/tags/providers. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, mention the context parameter's role, or describe any side effects. As a find command, read-only behavior is implied, but the description alone gives only partial transparency.

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 short and front-loads the core resource, but it contains two fragments ('Authentication, domain security, VDP, trust center.' and 'Understanding plan.'), one of which is unclear. The useful directives (filtering, include, alternative) are compact, but the ambiguous fragment wastes a sentence and reduces structural quality.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential search behavior (scope, filters, body inlining) and sibling routing. It does not describe default paging, sorting behavior, or what the response shape looks like, and the 'Understanding plan' fragment adds confusion. It is minimally viable but leaves several behavioral gaps.

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 low (44%). The description adds meaning to the include parameter (inlining bodies) and identifies providers as a filter, but it does not explain pagination params (page, limit) or the match/context parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Some compensation occurs, but not enough for the coverage gap.

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 clear resource and scope: 'Security artifacts across the catalog.' It enumerates relevant categories (Authentication, domain security, VDP, trust center) and distinguishes itself from find_artifacts by specifying that tool is for cross-type search. However, the fragment 'Understanding plan' is ambiguous and detracts slightly from an otherwise clear purpose.

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 provides an alternative: 'Use find_artifacts for cross-type search.' This tells the agent that find_security is for security-artifact-only searches and find_artifacts is the broader option. It does not enumerate exclusions, but the key routing guidance is present.

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