search_disclosed_reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one trait, program-scoped deduplication, but says nothing about permissions/auth, rate limits, pagination, or result ordering for a search endpoint.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no waste, and the scoping constraint is front-loaded. The terseness crosses into under-specification, but it is not verbose or padded.

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 described, but with no annotations and 0% parameter documentation, the agent is missing essential invocation context such as query semantics, default result size, and how this differs from hacktivity_search.

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 0% across three parameters. The description implies the program handle is required ('one program') but adds no meaning for 'query' or 'limit', leaving two of three parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 names the resource ('disclosed reports') and scopes it to a single program, which separates it from hacktivity_search and my_reports. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, and 'search' is only inferable from the tool name, so the action itself is implied rather than stated.

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 parenthetical hints that results are deduplicated within the program being hunted, giving a fragment of context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative hacktivity_search for broader disclosure browsing.

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