vulners_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions full-text search across many sources but does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, error behavior, or result format. For a search tool, more behavioral context is needed.

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 concise with two front-loaded sentences. The first sentence gives the overall purpose, and the second lists searchable content. No redundancy, but it could be slightly more structured.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides basic context (search scope, types). However, it lacks details about pagination, result structure, or how to effectively use the type and limit parameters, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about source breadth (200+ sources) and types of results (exploits, advisories, etc.), which partially supplements the parameter descriptions. However, it adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 is a full-text vulnerability search across 200+ sources, covering exploits, advisories, patches, and reports. While it distinguishes from many sibling tools by emphasizing broad coverage, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'exploit_search'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'exploit_search' or CVE-specific tools. The description implies general usage but lacks context-specific recommendations.

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