search_asset_vulns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly notes that solution/fixedVersion are not available and directs to the detail URL for remediation, which is useful. It also mentions scoping to the team. However, it omits authentication needs, rate limits, or any destructive/read-only nature beyond what's implied.

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 four sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds necessary information: what it returns, a critical limitation, and scope. 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?

Given 10 parameters with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects (return fields, missing fields, scoping). It omits details like pagination behavior or default ordering, but these are partially covered by schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a search tool.

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?

All 10 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the return fields and a specific limitation (missing solution/fixedVersion), but it does not enrich parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Search IT asset vulnerabilities detected by yamory', specifying the resource (IT asset vulnerabilities), source (yamory), and scope (team). It also lists returned fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_app_vulns or search_host_vulns.

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 IT asset vulnerabilities within a configured team, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusion criteria. No alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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