ee_cyber_search_guidance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and it does reasonably well: 'Full-text search' and 'Returns matching documents with reference, title, series, and summary' communicate a read-only search behavior and output shape. It does not mention pagination, result ordering, or authentication requirements, so not a 5.

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 compact sentences: the first states the action and corpus; the second lists covered sources and return fields. No filler or repetition; the headline verb is 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?

For a no-output-schema search tool, the description names the return fields and the document sources, and the schema covers all parameter constraints and defaults. The main contextual gap is routing guidance versus ee_cyber_search_advisories, already penalized in usage_guidelines.

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 the parameters (query, type, limit, series, status) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search across RIA cybersecurity guidelines, directives, and technical standards.' The scope is clear and the content list (ISKE, RIA guidance, NIS2, national strategy) makes the searchable corpus specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling ee_cyber_search_advisories.

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 guidance on when to use this tool over siblings such as ee_cyber_get_guidance or ee_cyber_search_advisories, and no exclusions or alternative routing. The coverage list implies a search use case, but agents must infer when not to use it.

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