search_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that only locally loaded rules are searched, that there are no network calls, and that each result carries a rule_id for a follow-up get_rule call. It omits result ordering/pagination behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage/exclusions, then behavior and output chaining across three tight paragraphs. Each sentence earns its place, though the description is a touch longer than strictly necessary for a search tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers purpose, usage, exclusions, offline behavior, and the follow-up get_rule chain. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 all 7 parameters (query, status, language, scenario, severity_min, approved_only, limit) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (search) and resource (security guide rules, baseline + real-time intel) with an explicit scope note that only locally loaded rules are queried. It distinguishes itself from scan_code/scan_path by naming them as the wrong tool for code inspection.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use triggers: finding the rationale/regulation behind a vulnerability type, safe alternatives, or related rules beyond a scan's rule_id. It also states when NOT to use it (code inspection → scan_code / scan_path), which is exactly the routing an agent needs.

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