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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: NVD-rejected records are excluded by default unless include_rejected=true, and every row carries vuln_status and rejected flags — meaningful disclosure about result composition.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The filtering caveat follows logically, though it could be trimmed slightly without loss.

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, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (vuln_status, rejected) and the rejection-filtering behavior. For a read-only search tool with 100% schema coverage, this is nearly complete, though it could still note result ordering or pagination behavior.

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 100%, so all six parameters including the version_operator enum and include_rejected are already documented by the schema. The description only reinforces include_rejected and the returned flags, adding little semantics beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Find CVEs affecting a specific product and version'), which clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like search or search_cve by its product/version scoping. It never names an alternative explicitly, 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?

'Useful for vulnerability assessment of software components' implies the context of use but gives no explicit when-not conditions and does not mention the sibling search_cve or search tools it overlaps with. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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