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.