search_csaf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It adds value by stating results are paginated summaries, but omits behavioral details like how multiple filters are combined (AND/OR), default sort order, rate limits, or maximum page size. It's not misleading, just incomplete.

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 efficiently structured sentences front-load the verb and resource, enumerate the filter dimensions, and state the return type. Every clause earns its place with zero redundancy. This is an exemplary model of concise tool documentation.

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 that all 10 parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema and the description covers the key runtime behavior (paginated summaries), the combination is quite complete for a search tool. Minor omissions like default result ordering or behavior with no filters prevent a perfect score, but the description is strong enough for an agent to use it effectively.

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 the schema fully documents all 10 parameters. The description adds context about the paginated, summary output but no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3, which is appropriate here.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a well-defined resource ('Red Hat CSAF advisory documents') and enumerates concrete filter dimensions (date, severity, CVE, package, Bugzilla ID, RHSA ID). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_cves' and 'get_csaf_details' by focusing on CSAF documents and returning 'a paginated list of advisory summaries.'

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 clearly positions this as the search/filter entry point for CSAF advisories and indicates the output is summaries, implicitly distinguishing it from detail-fetching siblings like 'get_csaf_details.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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