search_vulnerabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must inform about behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only nature, authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. It also does not describe the return format or pagination behavior despite parameters for limit/offset.

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, clear sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous words.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks information about return values, response structure, and how to combine parameters effectively. The presence of sibling tools with similar names (e.g., list_vulnerabilities) suggests more context is needed for disambiguation.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing the searchable fields (CVE, package, agent, or description) which correspond to the 'query' parameter. It does not clarify how multiple parameters interact (e.g., are they additive?).

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 tool searches the vulnerability inventory by specified criteria (CVE, package, agent, or description). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_vulnerabilities', which may list all vulnerabilities without a search query.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication when to use this tool over alternatives like 'list_vulnerabilities' or 'search_alerts'. The agent is left to infer from context.

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