findings_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral burden. It only says 'Search ... for a date range' and 'API behind the Findings table'. It does not disclose pagination behavior, defaulting rules (though schema does), any required parameters, or what happens with missing date ranges. The schema covers many details, but the description itself adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic intent.

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 sentences and stays on point, stating the core purpose first. It is concise and free of fluff, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose. No structural issues.

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?

Despite having a rich schema and an output schema, the description is very thin. It does not explain pagination defaults (page, per_page) even though they are mandatory upstream, nor the special interaction of assignee_email with use_v2. It also does not mention the existence of 'findings_search_advanced' or how this tool differs. This is incomplete for a tool with 9 parameters and a complex query object, even though the schema carries some weight.

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 all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions 'date range' which maps to start_date and end_date, but adds no additional meaning beyond that. Per the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and this description does not substantially exceed that baseline.

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 states a clear purpose: 'Search eSentire Findings (detections/alerts) for a date range.' It identifies the resource (Findings) and the primary action (search) with a specific scope (date range). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'findings_search_advanced', so an agent cannot tell when to use this versus that tool just from the description.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies that it is for searching findings by date range, but does not mention when to prefer 'findings_search_advanced' or any other tool, nor any exclusions or requirements. This leaves usage decisions to inference.

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