search_vulnerabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does so by stating the return shape (per-plugin aggregate records with CVSS severity, VPR score, affected asset count) and the cap at 'limit' records. It also notes case-insensitivity for severity. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not address side effects (none expected for a search) or pagination details beyond the cap.

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?

Four sentences, every one delivers essential info: what the tool does, filter options with examples, return shape, and a limit caveat. No fluff or repetition. The main action is front-loaded.

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 three optional parameters, no annotations, but an output schema that likely documents return fields, the description covers the core purpose, parameter semantics, and the limit behavior. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has zero descriptions and no enums, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the allowed severity values ('info', 'low', 'medium', 'high', 'critical'), case-insensitivity, provides an example for plugin_family ( ["Windows", "Web Servers"]), and specifies that limit caps the number of records. This is rich semantic detail that the schema lacks.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search current findings across the tenant via the vulnerability workbench.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_asset_details or list_assets, which address different resources (assets, plugins, scans). The scope and action are unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool: when searching for vulnerability findings with optional severity/family filters. It gives concrete filter examples, making the use case clear. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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