search_reports

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the search/list functionality and filtering capabilities, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the parameters, or what format the results will be in. The description provides basic functionality but lacks critical operational context.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve a purpose. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides usage context. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured for optimal front-loading of information.

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?

For a 7-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns (report objects? summaries?), how results are structured, pagination behavior beyond the parameters, or error conditions. The usage hint helps but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and output context needed for effective tool 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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions filtering by 'keyword, program, severity, or state' which aligns with some parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 searches and lists HackerOne reports with specific filtering capabilities. It uses specific verbs ('search and list') and identifies the resource ('HackerOne reports'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_report' or 'list_programs'.

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 provides an implied usage context ('Great for finding past reports to reference when drafting new ones'), which gives some guidance on when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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