searchsploit_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the local, immediate nature of the search and parameter-specific overrides (e.g., 'cve overrides query'), but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or return format. Since it's a search operation, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise and well-structured, with a single opening sentence followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description thoroughly explains all parameters, but it does not describe the return value structure beyond 'returns results'. For an agent to use the output, it would benefit from knowing what fields are returned (e.g., paths, titles, EDIDs), which is a minor gap.

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?

The description adds substantial meaning beyond the empty schema descriptions, explaining each parameter: query semantics, exact matching, title_only scope, CVE override behavior, and exclude pattern. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('Exploit-DB local database'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools such as searchsploit_get_path. It also enumerates parameter behaviors, making the tool's purpose immediately obvious.

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 by noting this is a local DB search that returns immediately, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like cve_to_exploit or searchsploit_get_path. It provides context without exclusions or direct comparison.

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