search_press

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. It adds valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations: results are sorted newest first, month requires year, offset should reuse next_offset from a prior call, and limit is constrained to 1-200. These details meaningfully shape how the tool behaves.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a concise sort-order note and a compact Args list. Every line adds necessary information, with no fluff or repetition of schema defaults. The length is appropriate for six parameters that need semantics.

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?

The tool has six parameters, a rich output schema, and annotations that cover safety, so the description only needs to cover calling conventions. It fully explains parameter formats, dependencies, sorting, and pagination. The pointer to 'use next_offset from a prior call' is especially practical. Nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate for missing parameter documentation. It does so by explaining every parameter with concrete formats and examples: year as '2024', month as '03', country as an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code, limit with a numeric range, offset with pagination semantics, and full as an enrichment toggle. This is complete and goes beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('all tracked cyberattack press entries'), and the filtering dimensions (year, month, country). This makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_recent_press, which likely serves a similar but more recent-focused use case, so it does not earn a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_recent_press or search_victims. It explains how to call the tool but not which scenarios it is best suited for. There are no explicit exclusions or mentions of sibling tools, so an agent must infer usage context from the parameter list.

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