search-security-signals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'search' without mentioning read-only nature, permission requirements, or pagination behavior. This is insufficient for a search tool.

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 sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and adds example usage. However, it could be slightly more structured to improve readability.

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 complexity (3 top-level parameters with nested objects, no output schema, many siblings), the description is incomplete. It does not explain pagination, sorting, or filtering details, nor does it describe what the response contains.

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 for top-level parameters is low (33%). The description does not add meaning beyond what is in the schema for parameters like 'filter', 'sort', and 'page'. It fails to compensate for the schema gaps.

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's purpose: 'Search security monitoring signals (threat detections, security alerts)'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and provides example usage phrases that help differentiate from siblings like 'search-security-findings'.

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 gives example use cases ('recent security alerts', 'threat detections', 'security signal search') but does not specify when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives. More explicit guidance would be beneficial given the many sibling tools.

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