se_cyber_search_advisories

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

Description implies a read-only operation by stating 'returns advisories', but with no annotations provided, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, no auth requirements, or rate limits. 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?

Two sentences: first states the core action, second adds key details. No extraneous information, well 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 search tool with 3 parameters (1 required, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers what is returned (severity, affected products, CVE references). Could mention pagination or default limit, but schema already covers limit defaults.

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%. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing example queries ('kritische Schwachstelle', 'Ransomware', 'VPN') and noting that CVE references are returned 'where available', which clarifies optionality not in the schema.

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 searches BSI security advisories and alerts, and lists return fields (severity, affected products, CVE references). It distinguishes from sibling tools like se_cyber_search_guidance which searches guidance 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., se_cyber_search_guidance or se_cyber_get_advisory). No mention of prerequisites or when to avoid.

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