mt_cyber_search_guidance

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It describes search behavior and return fields but lacks details on pagination, result ordering, or other operational traits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Extremely concise with two sentences, front-loaded with key purpose. 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?

Covers what is searched and what is returned. Lacks mention of default limit (though schema mentions 20) and any special considerations. Reasonably complete given the straightforward search functionality.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so 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 states it performs full-text search across specific cybersecurity documents (guidelines, standards, policy) and lists covered topics and return fields. It distinguishes from siblings like mt_cyber_search_advisories by focusing on guidance documents, though not explicitly.

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 versus siblings or alternatives. The description implies its scope but does not state when not to use it or provide context for selection.

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