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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating the return payload includes CVSS scores, KEV status, and EPSS data, and that full-text search on descriptions is supported. No contradictions with annotations.

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 and about 40 words. It is front-loaded with the primary action, followed by return data and an alternative tool reference. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or filler.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description specifies the key return fields (CVSS, KEV, EPSS) and points to get_cve_details for deeper information. It does not mention pagination limits or result ordering, but the schema covers the limit/offset parameters. For a complex 12-parameter search tool, the description provides sufficient context without needing to enumerate every aspect.

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%, with each parameter already documented concisely. The description's reference to 'keyword, severity, score range, and filters' is a high-level summary that doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. The note about full-text search on descriptions duplicates the keyword parameter's schema description.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Search CVEs by keyword, severity, score range, and filters.' It specifies the resource (CVEs) and the action (search), and distinguishes itself from get_cve_details by directing users there for full details on a specific CVE. The verb+resource+scope is specific and actionable.

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 explicitly names get_cve_details as an alternative for full information on a specific CVE, which provides a clear when-not-to-use signal. However, it does not contrast with other search-related siblings like search_by_product or batch_search, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this tool over those.

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