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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact, '(paginated)', but does not say whether matching is exact, prefix, or substring, which materially affects results.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose and the pattern example front-loaded and the use case deferred to the end.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the tool is a simple paginated search. The remaining gap is the matching semantics of cpe_pattern, which an agent needs in order to phrase queries 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does so only for the required cpe_pattern by showing its literal format. Page and limit are left to their titles/defaults, and paging behavior (max limit, whether page starts at 1) is not addressed.

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 (Find) and resource (scans) scoped by CPE identifier matching, and gives a concrete pattern example ('cpe:2.3:a:facebook:react'). This implicitly separates it from get_cpe_by_scan (CPE for one scan) and get_cpe_stats, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Useful for finding sites running a given product' supplies a use case, which is more than nothing. However there is no when-not guidance and no explicit routing to the alternatives (search_technologies, get_cpe_by_scan) when the agent has a scan ID instead of a pattern.

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