intelligence_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. 'Does not contact the network' largely restates openWorldHint=false, though 'cached' usefully signals potential staleness of results. No rate limits, freshness windows or result-shape notes are added.

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, with the core action and scope front-loaded and a single behavioral qualifier after it. No filler or repetition.

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, and the annotations cover safety. However, for a low-coverage search tool, the absence of any query-format guidance or result-scoping notes leaves a real gap for correct invocation.

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 both parameters carry their full burden in the schema titles alone. The description says nothing about whether 'query' is free text, a CVE ID, a keyword set, or how 'limit' interacts with results, leaving the agent to guess at query syntax for a search tool.

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), with the 'cached' scope narrowing it versus the sibling intelligence_get and intelligence_sync. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly names a sibling or the boundary between them.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among siblings like intelligence_get or intelligence_sync. The agent must infer that this is the free-text search path and that the others are direct-fetch or refresh paths.

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