jpcert_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a 1-hour cache and the extraction of MITRE techniques, CVEs, and attributed actors, which are genuinely useful operational details. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but the disclosed traits go beyond the schema.

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 tight sentences with no filler: the action and resource are front-loaded, followed by source context, then extraction and caching behavior. Every sentence adds information.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description summarizes what results contain (MITRE techniques, CVEs, actors) and notes caching. It does not specify the exact result structure or pagination, but for a simple one-required-parameter search tool this is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description largely restates what the query parameter already says (keyword, CVE, actor, malware family) and adds no new detail about the limit parameter or query formatting.

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 and resource: 'Search JPCERT/CC RSS feed for security advisories.' It also enumerates supported query types (keyword, CVE, actor name, malware family) and mentions extracted fields, making the tool's scope unmistakable and distinct from sibling CERT-feed searches.

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-specific wording implies this tool is for JPCERT/CC English-language advisories, but it never explicitly says when to prefer it over sibling tools like anssi_search or cert_eu_search, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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