lv_cyber_search_guidance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes search behavior and return fields (reference, title, series, summary) but does not disclose any limitations, permissions, or safety traits beyond what the name implies. As a read-only search tool, this is adequate but minimal, offering some context without covering details like pagination or ordering.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Full-text search'), and each sentence serves a purpose: the first defines the resource and scope, the second lists topics and return fields. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it explains what is searched, the source, covered domains, and the returned document fields. It does not mention limit behavior or pagination, but the schema already documents the limit parameter, so this is acceptable. The description covers the necessary context for a search tool.

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 baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description. The description adds some contextual value by mentioning coverage areas (e.g., NIS2, network security) that map to filter parameters, but it does not elaborate on parameter syntax or behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb 'Full-text search' and resource 'CERT.LV cybersecurity guidelines, recommendations, and national standards', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like lv_cyber_search_advisories and lv_cyber_get_guidance. It also specifies the document types and return fields, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on the tool's scope (guidelines, recommendations, standards, NIS2) and the topics it covers, such as network security and incident response. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like search_advisories or get_guidance, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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