vulners_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool searches and returns data, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or any side effects. Since it's a search tool, the lack of side-effect discussion is acceptable, but additional context on behavior would be beneficial.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words and conveys the essential information efficiently.

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's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and return categories. It does not detail the response structure or pagination, but the mention of return types and query language provides adequate context. The lack of an output schema raises the need for return information, which is partially addressed. Overall, it is near-complete for a straightforward search tool.

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 both parameters described. The description adds the context of 'Lucene queries' but does not explain query syntax, formatting, or limit constraints beyond what schema provides. The value added is minimal, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool searches the Vulners vulnerability database using Lucene queries, and specifies the return types (CVEs, advisories, exploits). The verb 'search' and resource are specific, and the mention of Lucene queries adds precision. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vulners_id and vulners_exploit which are likely more targeted lookups.

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 implies general search usage but does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned. The context of sibling tools suggests a niche, but explicit guidance is missing. For an agent, it's inferable that this is the primary search tool, but not clearly stated.

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