d3fend_defense_search

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) indicate safe read operations. Description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: default slim response (drops uri, ~30% savings), optional full include, rate limits, return structure. No contradictions.

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?

Description is well-structured and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, then details default behavior, examples, rate limits, and return format. While slightly verbose, every sentence contributes useful information. Minor redundancy in explaining slim drops uri twice.

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 search tool with 6 parameters (none required), 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers all relevant aspects: search criteria, response format, chaining with lookup, rate limits, and pagination via next_calls. Complete for effective tool use.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters documented. Description adds significant value: explains the include parameter's effect (slim vs full), gives examples for keyword (e.g., 'token'), and explains exclude_id's chaining purpose. This context goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches the MITRE D3FEND catalog by keyword, tactic, or artifact, providing specific examples (e.g., 'what defenses harden access tokens?'). It distinguishes from the sibling d3fend_defense_lookup by explaining the drill-down pattern, making the purpose 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 gives clear usage context: discover defenses for a threat model, with examples (tactic=Harden + artifact='Access Token'). It explains when to use exclude_id (chaining from lookup) and mentions rate limits (30/hr free, 500/hr Pro). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling tool differentiation is implied.

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