cisa_search_advisories

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one genuine behavioral trait: 'Cached 1 hour,' which tells the agent how fresh results will be. However, it does not disclose return format, no-result behavior, rate limits, or any access requirements, so the disclosure is partial rather than complete.

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 the purpose front-loaded in sentence one and usage/behavioral context packed into the final sentence. The second sentence (type filter) mildly duplicates the schema enum, but nothing is wasted and the description remains compact.

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 search tool, the essentials are covered: what is searched, how to filter, and freshness (1-hour cache). But with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the return shape and error/empty-result behavior undocumented, which an agent would have to discover at call time.

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%: query, type, and limit each have inline descriptions, so the schema already carries the heavy lifting. The description slightly echoes the query parameter (keyword, CVE, actor, malware family) and the type enum, but adds no new syntax, formatting, or default details beyond the schema — matching the baseline for high 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('CISA cybersecurity advisories and alerts'), and the supported search subjects (keyword, CVE, actor, malware family). It is distinguishable from sibling advisory-search tools like nsa_search_advisories and fbi_flash_search by the CISA attribution, though it never names an alternative explicitly the way a top-tier definition would.

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 claim that 'Advisories from CISA carry the highest confidence for active exploitation' implies this is a good default when actively-exploited vulnerabilities matter, but it is never stated as an explicit when-to-use rule. No exclusions or alternatives (e.g., nsa, cert_eu, ncsc_uk) are mentioned, so an agent must infer routing from the CISA attribute alone.

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