search_cyber_threats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is free and requires no key, returns specific fields (id, title, severity/score, URL, record_id), and that full records cost money via get_record. While it omits potential rate limits or pagination, the transparency is strong for a search tool.

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 long but every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the key benefit ('FREE, no payment and no key'), then lists data sources, return fields, and monetization details in a logically ordered way. The Args section is clearly separated, and no information is redundant.

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's complexity (multiple data sources, partial free results, paid full records), the description covers search scope, output format, cost model, and the alternative tool. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by explicitly listing the return fields, making the description sufficient for an agent to understand expected results.

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 only parameter, query, is explicitly documented with a description ('keyword(s) to search') and a concrete example ('Microsoft Exchange'). This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, giving an agent enough semantics to construct a valid query.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('cybersecurity intelligence') and enumerates the exact data sources covered (CVE, EPSS, CISA KEV, advisories, CWE, ATT&CK). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool is_cve_exploited by specifying when that alternative is more appropriate, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: it is free to search, full records require a separate call to get_record, and is_cve_exploited is the better choice when only checking active exploitation of a known CVE ID. This offers clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives.

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