hackerone_search_programs

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. 'Live, no cache' communicates data freshness, but it does not disclose read-only safety, rate limits, result-size behavior, or any other operational traits that would help an agent understand side effects.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core search criteria are front-loaded, and the 'Live, no cache' note adds a useful behavioral fact without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description omits return-value shape, pagination/limit behavior, and any pointer to sibling tools. It is enough for a basic invocation but leaves an agent uncertain about how results are presented and when to prefer related program tools.

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 schema already describes query as a substring and bounty_only as a bounty filter, and the description restates these without adding new meaning. The limit parameter is documented only by its min/max constraints, with no semantic explanation in either the schema or 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 programs', with explicit criteria: 'by handle/name' and optional 'bounty-only'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like hackerone_list_programs (listing programs) and hackerone_search_scopes (searching scopes).

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies searching by handle/name but never mentions alternatives such as hackerone_list_programs or hackerone_get_program_details, so an agent gets no routing help.

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