hackerone_search_reports

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of explaining behavior. It only says the tool searches and lists reports with filters, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default sort, whether full report contents are returned, or any ownership/authorization expectations. The scope 'your' adds some context, but significant behavioral traits are omitted.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes useful information about scope and filtering, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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, this tool needs a more complete description. It lacks guidance on pagination, result shape, sort behavior, and when to prefer this tool over search_disclosed_reports or other search tools. The description is adequate for orientation but not enough for confident invocation in a multi-tool context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 71%, and the description mirrors what the schema already exposes by naming keyword, program, severity, and state filters. It adds no new semantics for sort, page_size, or page_number, and it does not help clarify the undocumented page_number parameter. Still, it provides a reasonable orientation to the main filterable facets.

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 clearly identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Search and list your HackerOne reports.' It also names the main filter dimensions (keyword, program, severity, state). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the phrase 'your HackerOne reports' distinguishes it from hackerone_search_disclosed_reports.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hackerone_search_disclosed_reports, hackerone_search_programs, or hackerone_get_report. The description implies a search/list context but provides no exclusions or routing hints for an agent choosing among sibling tools.

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