search_ave

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

No annotations provided, but description clearly explains the search behavior: it searches across multiple fields and returns specific data. This sufficiently discloses the read-only nature and output content.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second details fields searched and return data. No waste, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Output schema exists (mentioned in context), so return value details are not required. Description covers search scope and return fields. Minor omission: no mention of error handling or empty result behavior, but acceptable.

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 covers both parameters (query and limit) with descriptions. The description adds value by providing example query terms ('tool poisoning', 'credential', 'MCP01'), which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Search term'.

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 'Search AVE records by keyword' and lists specific fields searched (AVE ID, title, attack class, description, behavioral fingerprint). It also mentions return fields (severity, AIVSS score, link), making it distinct from sibling tools like list_ave and lookup_ave.

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 alternatives. It implies keyword search but doesn't specify exclusions or context. While search is implied, the description lacks comparative usage advice.

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