acsc_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the data source (RSS feed), post-processing behavior ('Extracts MITRE techniques, CVEs, and attributed actors'), and data freshness ('Cached 1 hour'). This gives the agent a solid behavioral model beyond the raw 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?

Four short sentences, roughly 40 words, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds information: what it searches, the source agency, extraction behavior, and caching. The acronym expansion ('ACSC (ASD)' → 'Australian Cyber Security Centre') is mildly redundant but useful for clarity.

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 low-complexity tool (2 params, 1 required, no output schema, no enums), the description covers the essential operational details: source, match types, enrichment output, and freshness. Minor omissions like empty-result behavior and pagination are acceptable gaps for a simple RSS 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 100%, so the schema already documents both params ('Search keyword: actor name, CVE ID, malware family, or advisory topic' and 'Max results to return (default: 10)'). The description mostly paraphrases the query parameter without adding new semantic detail, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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'), a specific resource ('ACSC (ASD) RSS feed'), and the match criteria ('keyword, CVE, actor name, or malware family'). 'Australian Cyber Security Centre' clearly identifies the national source, distinguishing it from regional siblings like anssi_search, jpcert_search, and cisa_search_advisories.

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 source identification ('ACSC', 'Australian Cyber Security Centre') implies this tool is for Australian government advisories, giving the agent useful context among many national CERT/advisory siblings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of how it differs from overlapping tools like govt_joint_advisory_search or cccs_search.

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