search_findings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists return fields and an output instruction (URL inclusion), but omits details on side effects, permissions, rate limits, error behavior, or the fact that it's read-only. The description does not confirm safety or non-destructiveness.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a brief note. It front-loads the primary action and return values, and the important instruction about URLs is clearly separated. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity (12 parameters, nested object, no output schema) and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It explains what the tool does and returns, but lacks guidance on parameter usage, pagination behavior, or how to construct effective queries. The return field list is helpful, but users may need more context for a tool with this many filters.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it lists return fields but does not elaborate on parameter meaning, usage patterns, or how to combine filters effectively. The instruction about the URL relates to output, not parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool searches 'Solodit's 20k+ smart contract security findings' and lists return fields (severity, firm, etc.). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_finding (single finding) and get_filter_options (filter options) by focusing on search over multiple audits.

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 when to use (searching findings) and an important presentation guideline ('always include the Solodit URL'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use get_finding instead), leaving some ambiguity.

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