ee_cyber_search_advisories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the return content and notes CVE references are included 'where available', which is useful, but it does not mention potential side effects, data freshness, pagination behavior, or whether incident alerts differ from advisories.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The main search action and target resource are front-loaded, and the return-value sentence adds meaningful context without redundancy.

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 straightforward search tool, the description plus fully documented schema gives enough to call it correctly. However, the lack of an output schema and annotations means the agent gets no detail on result formatting, ordering, or how the returned fields map to the query, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

All three parameters already have clear descriptions in the input schema, including an enum for severity and examples for query. The tool description repeats only the concept of severity and CVE references without adding new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the operation as 'Search CERT-EE security advisories and incident alerts', which is a specific verb and resource. It also tells the caller what kind of results to expect (severity, affected products, CVE references), making it distinguishable from siblings like search_guidance or list_frameworks.

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 gives no guidance on when this tool should be used instead of ee_cyber_get_advisory or ee_cyber_search_guidance. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusion criteria, so the agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and resource type.

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