search_app_vulns

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals return fields and team scoping but omits whether the tool is read-only, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. For a search tool, this is minimal transparency.

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 three concise sentences with no redundant fluff. Every sentence adds value: purpose+returns, scoping.

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 10 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers key returned fields and scoping. It lacks details on default pagination behavior (though schema mentions page/size) and the structure of results, but overall is mostly complete.

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%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond schema; it only provides high-level context. Baseline 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 searches for app library vulnerabilities from yamory and lists returned fields (triage, status, package, solution, CVE). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'search_host_vulns' by specifying 'app library'.

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 vs sibling tools (e.g., search_vulns). The mention of team scoping implies a use-case, but no when-not-to or alternatives are given.

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