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 burden. It discloses the return format ({total_count, results[...]}), pagination via size/from_, default sort logic, and date bounds with YYYY-MM-DD format. It does not mention rate limits or authentication requirements, but it is sufficiently transparent for a read-only search operation.

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 (5 sentences) and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, followed by filter list, sort defaults, date bounds, pagination, and return format. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly comprehensive. It covers all parameters, return structure, pagination, and default behaviors. It lacks details on error handling or rate limits, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, leaving all parameter meaning to the description. The description thoroughly explains each parameter: query, severity, cwe, cve, program, sort (with default behavior), since/until (with format), size, and from_. It provides valid values and context beyond the schema, making parameter usage clear.

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 it searches 'HackerOne's PUBLIC disclosed reports (hacktivity)', distinguishes from sibling search tools like search_directory and search_scopes, and details the specific resource and verb. It also lists multiple filters, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to search public disclosed reports) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. It explains default sort behavior and parameter usage, which helps, but lacks exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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