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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds the paging contract (results come page by page, continue via cursor), which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose ordering defaults, result size defaults, or whether the search is exhaustive, so it remains thin for a 17-filter query 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the result description and followed immediately by the pagination instruction; no filler or repetition. The terseness costs some clarity ("Records" instead of "vulnerabilities") but nothing is wasted.

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 17-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers pagination but leaves the shape and termination of results implicit, and never clarifies that all filters are optional and combinable. The 100% schema coverage carries most of the burden, so this is adequate rather than complete.

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 17 filters is already documented in the input schema, justifying the baseline 3. The description only adds the cross-reference that the previous page's "next" value goes into the cursor parameter — helpful but phrased with a field name ("next") that does not appear in the input schema and is unexplained without an output 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 gives a verb-less framing ("Records matching a text and filters, a page at a time") and never names the resource as vulnerabilities, so the reader must infer the domain from the tool name. It also does not distinguish this from siblings like get_vulnerability or list_exploited. It is understandable but vague on scope.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this search versus get_vulnerability, list_exploited, or get_advisory. The only actionable instruction is pagination-related ("Pass next as cursor for the next page"), which addresses how to continue, not when to choose this tool. No prerequisites, no exclusion of overlapping tools.

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