search_detections

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does add useful disclosure by mentioning 'Uses FTS5 full-text search', which signals tokenized keyword matching behavior. However, it does not describe return format, result ordering, pagination, or whether results include snippets/highlights, 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?

Two concise sentences deliver the core action, search scope, underlying search mechanism, and supported formats. Every clause adds information, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 moderately simple keyword search tool, the description covers the search surface, the FTS5 behavior, and the supported detection types. The main gap is the absence of any return-value description, which matters more because no output schema is provided, but the essential calling context is otherwise present.

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, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema. It clarifies what the query parameter will match (name, description, tags, process names, CVEs, data sources) and names the supported rule formats, which helps the agent form better queries even though the source schema already lists the value options.

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 and resource: 'Search security detections by keyword', and enumerates the searchable fields (name, description, tags, process names, CVEs, data sources). It also distinguishes itself from format-specific sibling tools by noting it supports Sigma, Splunk ESCU, Elastic, and KQL rules.

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 establishes the general use case: keyword-based full-text search across detection metadata. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over structured alternatives like list_by_severity, list_by_cve, or get_detection, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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