vulners_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that results span CVEs, advisories, and exploits, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or rate limits that a searcher would care about.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the action and query language front-loaded and the return types trailing. Efficient, though not notably rich.

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 two-parameter, read-only search tool with full schema coverage and annotations, this is adequate but thin. It omits how results are bounded/paged and gives no hint about ranking or relevance, which would help an agent use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (query, limit) are already documented with types, bounds, and defaults. The description's phrase 'using Lucene queries' marginally reinforces the query format but adds no syntax detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the Vulners vulnerability database') plus the query language (Lucene) and what is returned (CVEs, advisories, exploits). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close siblings vulners_id and vulners_exploit, which an agent must infer on its own.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives. An agent is left to infer that this is the general full-text search path while vulners_id and vulners_exploit handle specific lookups; nothing in the text routes it.

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