search_bundles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds conceptual context about bundles but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination or filtering behavior, which are already covered by the schema and annotations.

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 long, with the first sentence stating the action and the second explaining what bundles are. Every sentence earns its place, and the content is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

For a simple paginated search tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains the domain concept of bundles, and the schema covers parameters while the output schema covers return values. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters, leaving the schema as the primary source of parameter documentation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' with the resource 'bundles' on Vulnerability Lookup, clearly distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search_vulnerabilities and search_sightings. It also explains what bundles are (curated collections of related vulnerabilities), reinforcing the tool's unique purpose.

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 implies usage context by explaining that bundles are useful for grouping CVEs by campaign, product, or incident, which suggests when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, relying on the domain explanation to convey applicability.

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