cccs_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals useful behavioral traits: it searches an RSS feed, extracts MITRE techniques/CVEs/attributed actors, and caches results for 1 hour. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a straightforward read-only search tool the disclosed details are meaningful and not contradictory.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the primary action and target source appear first, followed by the source organization, extracted content, and caching behavior. Every sentence earns its place without redundant or filler wording.

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 simple two-parameter RSS feed search with no output schema, the description gives a solid picture: what is searched, what kinds of queries are accepted, what enriched fields are extracted, and a caching caveat. It could be even more explicit about the exact shape of the returned results, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool effectively.

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 already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the query can be a CVE, actor, malware family, or advisory topic, but the schema already states this for 'query'. The 'limit' parameter is only documented in the schema, so the description does not significantly increase parameter clarity.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search CCCS / CCIRC RSS feed for security advisories.' It also names the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security and lists concrete search subjects (keyword, CVE, actor name, malware family), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like anssi_search or jpcert_search.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool by identifying CCCS/CCIRC and the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, which is important among a large set of country-specific advisory feeds. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the source association is strong enough to guide selection.

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