gb_cyber_search_advisories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions non-destructive search behavior and return fields (severity, products, CVEs). However, it does not disclose pagination, authorization requirements, or rate limits. Adequate for a search tool but incomplete.

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 a single concise sentence that covers the tool's function and output. It could briefly mention sibling distinctions or usage context, but overall it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description needs to explain the return value structure. It lists some fields but omits details like sorting, result format (list?), or default behavior. Missing pagination info and guidance on combining with other tools. Adequate but incomplete.

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%, and the description adds no new per-parameter details beyond what the schema provides. The description's mention of return fields does not enhance parameter understanding. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search NCSC security advisories and alerts.' It also specifies the output includes severity, affected products, and CVE references, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gb_cyber_get_advisory (likely single advisory) and gb_cyber_search_guidance (different content).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings. The description implies it's for searching advisories, but lacks alternative explainers. Context from sibling names suggests get_advisory is for single results, but no explicit differentiation.

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