anssi_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adds genuine value: 'Cached 1 hour' discloses potential staleness, and 'Extracts MITRE techniques, CVEs, and attributed actors' previews enriched result content. It omits rate limits and result language, but for a simple read-style search tool this is solid disclosure.

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, each earning its place: core search function, source clarification, extraction behavior, and cache caveat. The primary function is front-loaded in the first sentence with zero 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 low-complexity tool (2 params, 1 required, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers source, match types, caching, and extracted fields. Minor omissions — result language and empty-result behavior — are unlikely to cause a mis-call.

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 query and limit adequately. The description reinforces the query's accepted value types (actor name, CVE ID, malware family, topic) but adds no new format, syntax, or constraint detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('ANSSI / CERT-FR RSS feed'), with explicit match scope (keyword, CVE, actor name, malware family). The named source cleanly differentiates it from sibling feeds like jpcert_search and cert_eu_search without needing the schema.

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?

Usage context is implied by naming the French feed — an agent seeking CERT-FR advisories would plausibly select this — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no alternative tools are named. Given the large sibling set, explicit routing guidance would materially help.

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