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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: unverified early warnings are hidden by default, sort modes exist, and next_cursor must be passed back as cursor for pagination. It omits rate limits, auth requirements, and anything about result shape, but the behavioral core is covered.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then the operator enumeration follows. The list is dense but every operator cited is actionable for building a query; the one wasteful element is the trailing pagination sentence, which could have been folded earlier, but nothing is genuinely redundant.

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 three-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the grammar, the boolean semantics, the default filtering behavior, and the pagination protocol. It stops short of describing what a returned vulnerability record contains, which an agent would still have to discover by calling it.

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's own description of q is just 'The query', so the description does the real work by documenting the full query grammar, operators, and value syntax. It also explains the cursor round-trip convention (next_cursor back in as cursor), which the schema only hints at. Only limit is left to the schema's default/min/max, which is sufficient.

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 and resource: searching cve.now's vulnerabilities and early warnings via advisory.dev's query language. It is clearly distinguishable in kind from get_vulnerability or get_leaderboard, but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts with list_feed, which is the nearest alternative for browsing.

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?

Usage guidance is entirely about query syntax (ANDing, comma OR, leading '-'), not about when to choose this tool over list_feed or get_vulnerability. The one real routing hint is that unverified early warnings require confidence:unverified, which is useful but narrow. Tool selection is left implied.

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