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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does it well. It reveals that associations are name-based against the CPE, that results are pointers rather than findings, and that an empty result does not imply the module is unaffected. The statistical context (16 of 5,504 certificates) manages user expectations about data sparsity.

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 zero filler. The first sentence states the core function, the second frames the typical use case, and the third adds essential caveats about result interpretation. Information is front-loaded and 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most critical behavioral context: name-based matching, empty-result semantics, and data sparsity. It does not explain return format or how combined cve+vendor queries behave, but the tool's purpose and limitations are largely complete for a lookup tool.

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 50%, and the description compensates partially by explaining the role of the cve and vendor parameters in the two lookup directions. However, limit and min_cvss are not addressed in the description and have no schema descriptions, leaving a meaningful gap for two of the four 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 states a clear bidirectional lookup: FIPS-validated modules for a CVE, or CVEs for a vendor's modules. The use case 'we have a validated module, is it caught up in this advisory' makes the tool's purpose instantly understandable and distinguishes it from sibling tools like fips_search or fips_vendor.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: answering whether a validated module is affected by an advisory. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the intended scenario is concrete and actionable.

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 provided, the description itself must convey behavioral meaning. It transparently frames the tool as a read-style search and states the core outcome ('current validation' and 'level'). However, it does not disclose how status filtering behaves, whether results may include historical or revoked validations by default, or what the response contains beyond the implied level.

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, purposeful sentences with no filler. The core search behavior is front-loaded, and the use case is stated immediately after. 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 tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat thin. It defines the main use case and required query, so basic invocation is clear, but it omits guidance on filters such as status and level, and does not clarify whether the tool returns only current validations or all matching validations. Given the sibling set, a bit more context would help avoid mis-selection.

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 description maps 'query' to module name/vendor and hints at the 'level' concept, but it does not explain the 'status', 'limit', or 'level' parameters in any detail. The schema documents only the query parameter explicitly; the 'status' enum and 'limit' default are self-evident but under-described. The description adds some value but leaves meaningful gaps.

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'), a concrete resource ('FIPS 140 validations'), and the query dimensions ('module name or vendor'). It also clarifies the intended use case: determining whether a product/vendor holds a current validation and at what level. This is enough to distinguish it from the sibling tools such as fips_in_process or fips_sunset.

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 phrase 'Use this to answer whether a given product or vendor holds a current validation, and at what level' gives clear, actionable guidance for when the tool should be chosen. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use them, so it falls just 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.

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 burden, and it decently discloses behavior: it groups spelling variants, returns a breakdown by status and standard, and returns the certificates themselves. It also transparently explains the non-obvious grouping rule about one registration versus corporate families. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or pagination, but for a simple read-style vendoor lookup the core behavior is adequately disclosed.

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 main purpose and each sentence serves a role: definition, example, return contents, and grouping caveat. The nShield example is slightly detailed but earns its place by preventing a likely misinterpretation. Overall it is well-structured and reasonably concise.

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 only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough to understand purpose, return value, and an important scoping caveat. It does not describe the exact response shape or how 'limit' applies, but the essential invocation context is present.

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 describes 'vendor' as a name or part of one; the description adds useful nuance by explaining that vendoor matches NIST spelling variants and that one company can appear as multiple strings. However, the 'limit' parameter is not addressed in the description, and with 50% schema coverage the description only partially compensates for the undocumented parameter.

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 the tool as returning all certificates held by one company, grouped by the spelling variants NIST uses, and states it returns a status/standard breakdown plus the certificates. This is specific and understandable, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like fips_search or fips_cert.

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 clear context for when the tool is appropriate: looking up everything a single registration holds. It also clarifies what the grouping does not include—corporate families, with a concrete nShield/nCipher/Thales example—which helps avoid misuse, but it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions beyond that caveat.

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