tenable_search_vulnerabilities

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Search' aligns. It adds that it uses the 'Tenable exports API' and shows an output format, but doesn't disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the example.

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 concise, with a clear one-line summary, a note on the API, and an illustrative example. No unnecessary text, but the structure could be improved by grouping parameter explanations.

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 14 parameters and no output schema, the description provides an example output but does not explain the complete response structure, pagination, or the effect of the 'limit' parameter. It is adequate for simple use but incomplete for complex queries.

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 description lists some filtering parameters (severity, CVE, exploit availability, port, protocol, tags, time range) but covers only about 7 out of 14 parameters. The example provides concrete usage but the description does not explain formats, allowed values, or behavior for undocumented parameters like ipv4 or hostname. With 0% schema coverage, more detail is needed.

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 'Search for vulnerabilities across all assets', specifying the verb (search) and resource (vulnerabilities). It distinguishes from siblings like tenable_get_asset_vulnerabilities by emphasizing 'across all assets'. However, it could be more explicit about the scope compared to other 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 mentions 'extensive filtering' and provides an example, implying usage for broad vulnerability searches. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives like tenable_get_asset_vulnerabilities or tenable_list_findings, nor does it state when not to use it.

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