search_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds semantic context about comments being community-contributed but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, result ordering, or rate limits. It does not contradict the 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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action 'Search comments related to vulnerabilities'. It contains no redundant information and is appropriately sized for a simple search tool.

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 read-only filtered search tool with all parameters documented in the schema and an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains the domain (community comments on vulnerabilities) and the tool's purpose, and the schema handles parameter and return value specifics.

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% description coverage, with each parameter (page, author, vuln_id, per_page) already explained. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Search comments related to vulnerabilities') and clarifies that comments are community-contributed notes attached to specific vulnerabilities. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling search tools like search_vulnerabilities and search_sightings, which target different resources.

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 provides context about what comments are but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative tools. Usage is implied by the tool's name and description, but no proactive guidance is given.

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