FIPS 140 certificate tracker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return fields (status, level, sunset date, history, algorithms, configurations), which is useful, but it doesn't mention any behavioral traits like error cases for invalid certificate numbers, whether the record can be historical/revoked (it does say status can be that), or response size. The disclosure of the status types is a modest positive.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('Look up one FIPS 140 cryptographic module validation by certificate number') and then lists the returned attributes. Every clause earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it names the allowed status values and the full expected return payload. The only gap is guidance on error handling or what happens when the number is not found, but given the tool's simplicity this is a minor omission.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the single parameter semantically: the certificate number is the lookup key, and the returned data is tied to that exact module validation. However, it doesn't specify the exact format of the number (e.g., must be an integer like the schema requires) beyond implicit context. With one parameter and clear semantics, the description does enough.

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 verb ('Look up') and a precise resource ('one FIPS 140 cryptographic module validation by certificate number'). It enumerates exactly what the tool returns, which fully distinguishes it from siblings like fips_search (search) and fips_in_process (in-process list).

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 names the sibling fips_search implicitly by saying 'by certificate number', which tells the agent this is the one-record lookup variant. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context signals plus sibling names make the usage clear without being stated.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that matching is name-based against the product CPE, that results are pointers rather than findings, that empty results do not mean unaffected, and that only 4 of 712 certificates have associations and historical ones are never scanned. This is exemplary transparency about limitations.

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 three sentences with no waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the caveats about name-based matching and empty results each earn their 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?

The description covers purpose, the key caveat, empty-result semantics, and coverage statistics. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the return shape and the behavior of the optional limit/min_cvss filters unspecified, and it does not state what happens when no parameters are supplied.

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 coverage is 50%: cve and vendor have descriptions, while limit and min_cvss do not. The description clarifies the two query directions and name-based matching semantics, but it adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema's existing descriptions and does not compensate for the undocumented optional parameters.

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 a specific bidirectional query: 'Which FIPS-validated modules are associated with a given CVE, or which CVEs are associated with a vendor's modules.' This clearly identifies the resource and operation. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like fips_search or fips_cert, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 quoted use case, 'we have a validated module, is it caught up in this advisory', gives a concrete scenario for when to call this tool. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only search operation and discloses that results include the review phase. However, it doesn't mention response shape, pagination behavior, or any data freshness limitations. The coverage is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the resource and what is returned; the second supplies a concrete real-world use case. Every word 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?

Given three optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context for a straightforward search tool: what it searches, what it reveals, and when to use it. It doesn't explicitly describe return values or defaults, but the core usage scenario is well covered.

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 coverage is 67%: phase and query already have descriptions. The description adds contextual meaning by tying 'phase' to the review phase each submission is in, but it doesn't clarify the 'limit' parameter's behavior or add any new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('NIST's Modules in Process queue'), and a distinguishing scope ('submissions awaiting FIPS 140-3 validation'). This clearly separates it from the sibling search tools and explains the core value: showing the review phase each submission sits in.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger condition: use when a vendor claims validation is 'coming' and you need to verify submission status and progress. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully adds that results are ordered 'by status, then how well they match, then newest first, so the current validations lead.' It does not describe response shape or edge cases, but the ordering behavior is substantive and useful.

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?

Three concise sentences with front-loaded action and resource. Each sentence earns its place: scope, intended use, and result ordering. No filler or 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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description covers the core invocation context: what is searched, what question it answers, and how results are ordered. Some sibling differentiation and response shape detail are absent, but an agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

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 only 20%, so the tool description must compensate. It adds the 'module name or vendor' scope and the 'at what level' hint, while query matching semantics already appear in the schema. Other parameters rely mainly on enums, defaults, and naming, so the compensation is only partial.

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 FIPS 140 validations') and the searchable fields ('module name or vendor'), and clarifies the intended use case: determining whether a product/vendor holds a current validation and at what level. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like fips_cert or fips_vendor, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Use this to answer whether a given product or vendor holds a current validation' provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it offers no exclusions or named alternatives, leaving sibling differentiation to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool lists active validations, that sunset means moving to NIST's historical list and losing procurement validity, and that a listed certificate may already have a successor. It stops short of describing return fields or pagination, so it is not a 5.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: core action first, then representative questions, then a caveat routed to the right sibling. Every sentence 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 read-only listing tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states scope, domain meaning, likely use cases, and the critical caveat about 140-3 successors. It could describe expected output fields or clarify standard/limit usage, but those gaps are minor and partially covered by the schema.

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 only 25%, so the description needs to add meaning. It adds use-case meaning for before ('expires before date X') and vendor ('which vendors are about to have nothing valid'), but standard is left to the enum and limit to schema constraints. Compensation is useful but partial.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb-resource-scope: 'List active FIPS validations by sunset date' and defines what a sunset means (moves to NIST's historical list, stops being valid for new procurement). This distinguishes it from siblings like fips_search or fips_in_process.

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?

Provides explicit query patterns ('what expires before date X', 'which vendors are about to have nothing valid') and names the alternative tool to check before reporting a gap: fips_search for the same module name. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and meets it well. It discloses grouping behavior, the registration-vs-corporate-family distinction, the output shape (breakdown plus certificates), and the conditional tracker_url field. This is substantive context beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Four sentences, each adding distinct value: scope, a concrete spelling-variant example, output contents, a key caveat, and the tracker_url detail. It is dense rather than padded, though slightly long for a tool description.

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 two-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description is close to complete: it covers return contents, grouping behavior, and a special output field. The only meaningful gap is the meaning and effect of the 'limit' parameter, though its numeric bounds are present in the schema.

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 'vendor' as 'Vendor name or part of one', and the description adds useful grouping semantics for it. However, 'limit' has no schema description and the description never mentions pagination or result limits, leaving half of the parameters only partially explained.

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 'Everything one company holds' and specifies NIST spelling-variant grouping, then lists return contents: a breakdown by status and standard plus the certificates themselves. This clearly identifies fips_vendor as the company-level aggregation tool and differentiates it from sibling cert/search 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?

It states the intended query context ('Everything one company holds') and gives an explicit when-not: 'this groups spellings of one registration, not corporate families,' with the nCipher/Thales/Entrust example. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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