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

With readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true already in annotations, the description adds meaningful context by revealing that with cpeName, results are scoped to configurations where the product is 'directly vulnerable, not merely referenced as a dependency.' It also states that it returns full CVE records, which sets expectations beyond what annotations convey, though it does not address rate limits or other side effects — not required given the annotation coverage.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, required input modes, scoping nuance, and the prerequisite tool. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool is complex (10 parameters, 0 required), but the schema and output schema cover input mechanics and return structure well. The description provides the essential context an agent needs to choose this tool, including the prerequisite nvd_search_cpes and the behavioral nuance around cpeName. It does not explicitly mention pagination or severity filtering, but those are already described in the schema, so the description is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches the cpeName vs virtualMatchString distinction by explaining the scoping difference between an exact CPE match and a partial match with version bounds, and it reinforces the mutual exclusivity condition. This adds semantic nuance beyond the schema's field descriptions, justifying a 4.

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 verb and resource: 'Find all CVEs affecting a specific product and version using CPE,' which immediately states the tool's function. It further distinguishes itself from generic CVE search by explaining the scope difference when using cpeName vs virtualMatchString, and it names nvd_search_cpes as a prerequisite, clearly delimiting its role relative to siblings.

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 directs the agent to 'Use nvd_search_cpes first to resolve the correct CPE string for a product,' providing a clear when-to-use instruction, and it states the required input modes (cpeName or virtualMatchString with optional version bounds). However, it does not explicitly contrast with nvd_search_cves or other siblings, so it stops short of the explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance needed for a 5.

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