ncsc_uk_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 discloses that the tool searches an RSS feed, extracts MITRE techniques, CVEs, and attributed actors, and caches results for 1 hour. It does not mention output format or rate limits, but the cache note and extraction behavior add meaningful transparency.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, followed by useful context about content type, extracted fields, and caching. Every sentence contributes value.

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 search tool, the description covers the source, searchable content, extracted fields, and caching behavior. It does not explicitly describe the return structure, but the extraction note implies the result fields. Given the lack of an output schema, 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description's mention of 'keyword, CVE, actor name, or malware family' largely repeats the query parameter description in the schema. It adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 NCSC UK RSS feed for security advisories'. It lists concrete match types (keyword, CVE, actor name, malware family) and names the organization, clearly distinguishing it from sibling national CERT tools like anssi_search or cisa_search_advisories.

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 clearly identifies the intended source and content type ('UK National Cyber Security Centre advisories and guidance'), so an agent can infer when to select this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the source-specific framing provides sufficient context.

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