search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does explain the query language (operators: =, !=, CONTAINS, IN, AND, OR) with examples, which is essential behavioral context. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, error handling, authentication requirements, or what fields are searchable beyond the examples, leaving gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The three example lines efficiently illustrate typical usage, and the operator list is concise. No filler sentences; each element serves a purpose. It is slightly longer than necessary but well-structured.

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 tool with a complex DSL, no output schema, and four parameters, the description provides the necessary query syntax, operators, and use cases. It does not describe the return value format or pagination details, but those are partially covered by the schema's size/index descriptions. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand how to construct valid searches.

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 for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing exact DSL query strings for the 'query' parameter (e.g., "vulnerability.severity='HIGH'") and pairing the 'type' parameter with resource examples. This enriches semantic understanding beyond the schema's plain descriptions.

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 opens with 'Universal search across InsightAppSec resources using DSL query syntax,' which clearly identifies a specific action (search), resource domain (InsightAppSec resources), and distinguishing syntax (DSL). It also includes concrete examples for vulnerabilities, scans, and apps, making the purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling list/get tools.

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 does not explicitly contrast with sibling list_* tools or state when to use search versus dedicated list endpoints, but the 'Universal search' framing and examples (e.g., filtering vulnerabilities by severity) strongly imply it is intended for flexible cross-resource querying. However, no explicit exclusions or alternatives are given, so it falls short of a 5.

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