hacktivity_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about auth/permission requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or result scope. The only behavioral hint is that sort defaults to newest, which is arguably parameter semantics rather than behavior.

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the syntax detail. Efficient and well-ordered, though the syntax example could arguably be trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, which the description correctly omits. But for a 4-parameter, zero-coverage, unannotated tool it leaves page/limit semantics and sibling differentiation uncovered, making it only minimally complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does add real value for `query` (HackerOne Lucene syntax with a concrete example) and `sort` (default and example '-disclosed_at'). However, `page` and `limit` are left completely undocumented, so half the parameters remain opaque.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('disclosed reports'), and the parenthetical '(dedup / prior art)' clarifies the intent. It does not, however, differentiate from the near-identical sibling search_disclosed_reports, leaving the agent to guess which one to pick.

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 '(dedup / prior art)' note implies the use case for this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or mention of the overlapping sibling search_disclosed_reports. Usage must be inferred rather than read.

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