d3fend_defense_search

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: rate limits (30/hr free, 500/hr Pro), default slim response versus full, and the ability to exclude a defense ID. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint true, etc.).

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 a single paragraph of about 6 sentences, which is efficient but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points). It front-loads the core purpose and then covers parameters and rate limits.

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 6 parameters, no required fields, a rich output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers purpose, usage, all parameters, rate limits, and output structure. It is fully complete for an agent to use effectively.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds significant value: explains keyword substring search, tactic enum values, artifact example, limit range, include detail levels, and the purpose of exclude_id. This enriches each parameter beyond the schema.

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 it searches the MITRE D3FEND catalog by keyword, tactic, or artifact, and gives an example query. It differentiates itself by mentioning chaining to d3fend_defense_lookup, which helps distinguish from sibling tools.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance with an example ('what defenses harden access tokens?') and mentions when to use exclude_id (when chaining from lookup). However, it does not explicitly list alternatives among sibling tools, which would elevate the score further.

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