pt_cyber_search_guidance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns matching documents with specific fields but does not mention that it is read-only, any pagination behavior, or potential side effects. For a search tool, this is 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?

The description is two sentences front-loaded with purpose, followed by coverage and return fields. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

The description covers what the tool does and what it returns (reference, title, series, summary). Given the schema richness and lack of output schema, this is largely sufficient. However, it could mention default limit or that query is required (though schema covers that).

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%, and each parameter is well-described with enums and defaults. The description adds no additional detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 the tool performs full-text search across CNCS guidelines and technical reports, listing specific content types. The name and description distinguish it from sibling tools like pt_cyber_search_advisories, which searches advisories instead.

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 guidance documents, and sibling names provide clear differentiation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pt_cyber_search_advisories or pt_cyber_get_guidance.

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