ch_cyber_search_advisories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions return fields (severity, affected products, CVE references) but does not disclose pagination, error handling, authentication needs, or behavior for empty results. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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, no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second lists outputs. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers core functionality and return format. Missing details like pagination or error handling are minor given the context. It is mostly complete for agent usage.

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 by providing example queries in German (e.g., 'kritische Schwachstelle'), which helps the agent formulate queries. However, it does not elaborate on the 'limit' or 'severity' parameters beyond what the schema provides, so overall added value is modest.

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 NCSC-CH security advisories and warnings, with a specific verb 'search' and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ch_cyber_get_advisory' (single advisory) and 'ch_cyber_search_guidance' (different resource).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It does not mention when to prefer this over 'ch_cyber_get_advisory' or other siblings.

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