intelligence_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description reinforces locality by stating results are cached and that no network call is made, which tells the agent results may be stale, but adds nothing about latency, cache-freshness, or rate 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 short sentences, zero padding, with the primary action and the key constraint (no network) front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 documented, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is query semantics and result-set control, which are undocumented in both the description and the 0%-coverage schema for a search tool.

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% for both parameters: 'query' and 'limit' have no descriptions, defaults, or accepted formats. The description does not explain query syntax (CVE ID vs free text) or what limit controls, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance where the schema fails to provide any.

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 (cached CVEs and OWASP tests) plus the provenance angle, which is more specific than a generic 'search'. It separates itself from intelligence_sync by implying local cached data, though it never names the sibling tools it competes with.

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?

'Search cached CVEs and OWASP tests' plus 'Does not contact the network' implies this is the offline/local lookup option versus intelligence_sync, which presumably refreshes data. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-intelligence_get guidance is given, so the routing is left to inference.

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