qualys_search

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses an automatic extraction behavior that the schema does not capture, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is strictly read-only, mention rate limits, pagination, or describe the structure of what is returned, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary action and resource, and the second adds the key value-adding behavior. Every phrase 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 simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers what is searched and what is automatically extracted, giving an agent a reasonable picture of the tool's behavior. It does not detail the exact return format or list limitations, but the core usage context is adequately covered.

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%, with both 'query' and 'limit' already documented in the input schema. The description adds context about the domain (vulnerability analysis, patch intelligence) and extraction outputs, but it does not refine the meaning of the parameters themselves beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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-resource pair, 'Search Qualys security blog', making the tool's target and action immediately clear. It further distinguishes from sibling search tools by noting it 'Extracts MITRE TTPs, CVEs, and IOC markers automatically', a unique output trait that an agent can use to differentiate it.

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 implies the tool is for Qualys-specific vulnerability analysis and patch intelligence, which gives context for when to use it. However, it provides no explicit exclusions or references to alternatives among the many sibling search tools, leaving the agent to infer choice from the resource name alone.

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