cert_eu_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful behavior: 'Extracts MITRE techniques, CVEs, and attributed actors' reveals enrichment beyond a plain feed search, and 'Cached 1 hour' discloses data freshness. It omits rate limits and result ordering, but for a read-only search tool the disclosed traits are substantive.

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 short sentences with zero filler: the action is front-loaded, the content source follows, and enrichment/caching close it out. Every sentence earns its place.

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, read-only tool with 2 flat parameters and no output schema, the description covers the source, match semantics, extracted fields, and caching. The extraction sentence partially compensates for the missing output schema. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and pagination, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's matching types ('keyword, CVE, actor name, or malware family') largely restate the query parameter's schema description, adding little new semantic meaning beyond confirming the searched corpus is the CERT-EU RSS feed.

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 precise resource ('CERT-EU RSS feed'), and the scope of matching ('keyword, CVE, actor name, or malware family'). Naming the exact feed source clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like anssi_search, jpcert_search, and cisa_search_advisories without needing to open their schemas.

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 second sentence, 'CERT-EU threat intelligence publications for EU institutions,' provides clear context on the content coverage, which lets an agent route to this tool when EU-CERT advisories are needed versus alternative national-CERT feeds. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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