tenable_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful information by stating that MITRE TTPs, CVEs, and IOC markers are extracted automatically. However, it does not describe output format, pagination, rate limits, or other operational behavior.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the key differentiating behavior in a compact second clause.

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 search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what source is searched, what it returns conceptually, and what automatic enrichment is performed. It could be more complete by describing the result format, but it is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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%, with both 'query' and 'limit' already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('Tenable research blog') and states the purpose ('vulnerability intelligence and CVE analysis'). It also highlights unique behavior ('Extracts MITRE TTPs, CVEs, and IOC markers automatically'), which distinguishes it from sibling source-specific search tools.

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 implies this tool is for searching Tenable's research blog, which is useful context given many sibling tools target other sources. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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