hackerone_search_disclosed_reports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that program matching is exact, keyword matches several fields, and most hacktivity items are undisclosed with empty titles — a key caveat that materially shapes how an agent should use the tool. It does not mention pagination or output shape, but for a simple search tool this is acceptable.

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 tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, states the exact-match constraint, and immediately follows with the most important practical caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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 three-parameter search tool with full schema coverageaine, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool searches, how filters behave, and why keyword search is often unproductive. The main gap is that it does not describe the result format or pagination, but this is not critical for basic invocation.

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 already covers all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining that the program filter is exact match and that keyword matches title/weakness/program/reporter, going beyond the schema's narrower 'title/weakness' description.

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 action ('Search') and a distinct resource ('public hacktivity'), making it clear this is a read-only search over disclosed/public report activity. It also clarifies the program filter is an exact match, which helps distinguish it from broader report-search siblings.

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 gives practical search guidance: use the program filter for exact matching, and note that keyword searches are often ineffective because most items lack titles. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to prefer this over hackerone_search_reports, so it stops 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.