SecurityScorecard API Discovery

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dual return format (human-readable summary plus structured JSON), which is genuine behavioral information not present in the schema, and 'search' implies a read-only operation. However, it says nothing about auth requirements, result caps beyond the schema's limit, or pagination behavior.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the return-format sentence earns its place by clarifying output shape. Nothing is padded, though it is too terse to cover usage context.

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?

A 5-parameter, read-only discovery tool with no output schema and no annotations. The schema fully documents inputs, but the description leaves when-to-use and result-handling behavior unaddressed, so it is only minimally 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 description coverage is 100%, so tag, limit, query, method, and include_schema are already fully documented with examples and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search and discover SecurityScorecard API endpoints'), which is clearly distinct from the security-analytics siblings like analyze_security_risks or query_security_data. It never explicitly names an alternative, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to use this meta-discovery tool versus query_security_data or the other analysis tools, and no mention of prerequisites or what happens when a query returns nothing. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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