lv_cyber_search_advisories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by stating the return fields (severity, affected products, CVE references), which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as query matching behavior, result ordering, pagination limits beyond the schema, or any access requirements. For a read-only search tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 states the purpose and return value. It is front-loaded with the action ('Search CERT.LV...') and contains no filler or irrelevant information. Every word adds value.

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 combination of the description and the well-documented schema is sufficient for a search tool. The description covers the core return fields while the schema covers parameters. Although there is no output schema, the mention of severity, affected products, and CVE references gives the agent a solid expectation of results. Missing details like sorting or result structure are minor for this tool type.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (query examples, limit default, severity enum), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 searches CERT.LV security advisories and alerts, with a specific verb and resource. It mentions the return fields (severity, affected products, CVE references), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like lv_cyber_get_advisory, relying mainly on the search vs. get naming distinction.

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 implies usage for searching advisories/alerts but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as lv_cyber_get_advisory or lv_cyber_search_guidance. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are present, leaving usage context implicit.

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