zdi_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple search statement by noting that MITRE TTPs, CVEs, and IOC markers are extracted automatically, giving the agent a useful expectation of enrichment behavior. It does not detail return structure or limitations, but for a read-oriented search tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds the key extraction behavior in the second sentence. 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 tool with only two parameters, a fully documented schema, and no output schema, the description covers the core source, purpose, and enrichment behavior. It could be more complete by describing exactly what the search results look like, but it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'Search', the specific resource 'Zero Day Initiative (ZDI) blog', and the subject 'zero-day vulnerability disclosures'. It also adds the extraction of MITRE TTPs, CVEs, and IOC markers, which distinguishes it from other source-specific search tools like anssi_search or jpcert_search.

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 provides clear context for the tool: use it to search ZDI blog content for vulnerability disclosures. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the unique source and purpose make the intended usage evident among the many sibling search tools.

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