search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations don't: a 20-result cap and citation URLs in the response, plus the handoff to fetch. Pagination and rate limits are unstated, but that is a minor gap given annotation coverage.

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 short sentences with no filler. The capability statement comes first and the return shape plus fetch handoff second, so the useful routing 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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does (up to 20 results with citation URLs). Only the unresolved overlap with the search_cves sibling keeps it from being fully complete.

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 0% and the single required parameter 'query' has no schema-level description. The description compensates well by enumerating the acceptable query domains (CVE IDs, products, Japanese keywords, CWEs), which is exactly the semantic an agent needs to form a valid call.

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 gives a specific verb (Search) and enumerates the searchable resource types: CVE IDs, products, Japanese keywords, and CWEs. It is clear what the tool does, but it never explains how it differs from the sibling search_cves, leaving an agent to guess which search tool to pick.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to the fetch sibling for details, and states the result cap of 20, which sets expectations. There is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of search_cves as an alternative, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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