search_rules

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions that approved_only excludes auto-generated proposed rules, but lacks details on default behavior (e.g., limit is 5), pagination, read-only nature, or any side effects. The description is incomplete for a search tool with 7 parameters.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and following with actionable parameter advice. It is efficient with no redundant words. However, the brevity sacrifices coverage of other parameters, which could be included without losing conciseness.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema exists, the description is insufficient. It misses key behavioral context such as the default limit, the nature of the 'query' field, and how to combine filters. The output schema relieves return-value explanation, but the description still lacks completeness for effective invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for only 2 of 7 parameters: 'approved_only' and 'status.' The critical required parameter 'query' is not described, nor are 'scenario', 'language', 'severity_min', or 'limit.' This leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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's purpose: 'Search baseline and realtime security guidance rules.' The verb 'Search' and resource 'security guidance rules' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_loaded_rules' or 'get_rule', relying on the search concept rather than comparative guidance.

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 gives direct usage advice for two parameters: 'Set approved_only=True to exclude auto-generated proposed rules' and 'Use status="proposed" to inspect pending rules.' This provides helpful context for specific scenarios. However, it does not guide when to choose this tool over alternatives, leaving that implied.

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