search_reports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'search'. It does not state that the operation is read-only, how results are sorted or matched, whether it supports full-text search, or any other behavioral trait. The implied read-only nature of 'search' is not enough to rise above a minimal score.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is almost too terse to carry the required behavioral guidance. It earns a 4 for conciseness but loses a point due to lack of structure that might have included usage context.

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 large sibling set and the lack of annotations or output schema, this description is incomplete for reliable tool selection. It does not explain what constitutes a 'report', how it relates to the other searchable entities, or what the search behavior entails. An agent would need to open other tool definitions or make assumptions.

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 100%, with both query and limit already described clearly. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The description is not misleading, but it does not compensate or elaborate on the schema.

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 specific verb ('Search') and resource ('threat intelligence reports'), making the core function clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling search tools like search_threat_intel or search_incident, so it misses the differentiation that would earn a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling search tools. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or context clues such as 'choose this when looking for full report documents rather than individual entities.'

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