Search by Vulnerability Tag

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses sorting by quality score, that results are best examples first, and that tags use exact casing. However, it doesn't explain pagination behavior or what happens with invalid tags. A 4 is generous but justified given the clear behavioral claim about optimization and sorting.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by sorting behavior. Usage guidelines are clearly sectioned. The tag lists are long but justified by the necessity for exact casing. One sentence could be trimmed ('results are sorted by quality score' is already implied by 'optimized for finding examples'). Still, overall efficient.

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?

Despite 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers all key aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, behavior (sorting), tag usage guidance, and clear sibling differentiation. The lack of output schema is mitigated because the purpose is clearly retrieval of findings examples, and the schema path explains parameters fully.

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%, but the description adds value by listing commonly used tags in an organized manner and repeating them for easy copy-paste. It also provides the exact casing requirement which is critical for correct usage. The 'max: 100' and 'defaults' are already in schema, but the human-readable list of top tags adds semantic value beyond 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 Solodit findings by vulnerability tags, specific verb 'search' + resource 'findings' + qualifier 'by vulnerability tags'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning it's optimized for specific vulnerability pattern examples with quality sorting, while sibling 'search_findings' is for complex multi-filter queries.

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?

Provides explicit 'When to use' bullet points with three concrete scenarios. Directly names alternatives: 'Use search_findings for complex multi-filter queries', 'Use get_finding_detail to read full content', and 'Use recent_findings to browse'. This gives clear guidance on when not to use this tool.

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