Search BugSecure

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

The description discloses permission scoping, language support, the rule that researcher profiles match by title=username, and that merged result sets make paging approximate. These go beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations and give the agent operational expectations.

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?

Three dense sentences: the first lays out the search scope and access rules, the second points to follow-up tools, the third warns about paging. No redundancy or filler.

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?

For a complex multi-type search tool with 4 params, output schema, and annotations, the description covers language, permissions, result semantics, and paging caveats. It omits an explicit comparison to search_programs, but otherwise gives an agent what it needs to call and interpret results 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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, but the description adds meaning for `types` by explaining the researcher profile behavior and for `offset`/`limit` by warning that paging is approximate unless `types` is restricted. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 specifies the tool as full-text search over programmes, reports, and researcher profiles, with language coverage (French and English) and permission conditions. It clearly identifies the resources and scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling search_programs, so distinction is implicit.

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 gives conditions for report visibility (reports:read/triage:read) and explains paging behavior, but it never mentions when to use this tool instead of search_programs or other search alternatives. The 'Follow up with' sentence is about next steps, not tool selection. Thus usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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