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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's real contribution is the disclosure that CVSS and EPSS are null when NVD/FIRST do not publish them and are never estimated — a data-quality trait an agent could not infer from the schema. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination via cursor, or the 20-result cap.

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 front-loaded sentences plus a short data-quality caveat, with no filler; the purpose and the scored/filterable fields come first and the null-handling note last. The density of clauses makes it slightly heavy but every sentence carries information.

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?

There is no output schema and low schema description coverage, so the description must carry more weight; it covers the searchable dimensions and the null-value behavior adequately but leaves the pagination contract (cursor plus limit) and result ordering unaddressed. For a 10-parameter, zero-required query tool this is adequate but not complete.

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?

With only 30% schema description coverage across 10 parameters, the description partially compensates by naming the filterable dimensions (CVE id, vendor, product, known ransomware, minimum CVSS, addition dates), which map to cve, vendor, product, ransomware, min_cvss and from/to. It adds nothing about query, limit, or cursor, so several parameters remain unexplained in both places.

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 names a specific verb and resource – searching the CISA KEV catalog mirrored by IP73 – and enumerates the record fields (CVE id, vendor, product, ransomware, CVSS, addition dates), so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with the siblings (search_content, search_scams, latest_content), but those are clearly different domains, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 sentence 'Sans critère : les dernières ajoutées' tells the agent what happens when no filter is supplied, which is useful default-behavior guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus the sibling search tools, nor any exclusion or prerequisite, leaving usage to inference.

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