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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returns (CVSS scores, attack vectors, DORA pillar mapping) but does not detail safety (read-only), rate limits, or edge cases like empty results. It adds some context but leaves gaps.

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 a single concise sentence that efficiently packs the tool's purpose and key outputs. No filler words, and every phrase adds value.

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?

For a search tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and return values. It omits details like pagination or result formatting, but the schema covers parameters. It distinguishes from sibling tools adequately, making it fairly 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%, meaning every parameter is described in the schema. The description adds high-level context (keyword, vendor, product) but not detail beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 searches CVEs by keyword, vendor, or product, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also differentiates from siblings like cve_latest (which likely lists latest CVEs) by emphasizing search functionality and DORA pillar mapping.

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 implies usage for vulnerability research with filters, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like kev_check or cve_latest. It lacks clear exclusions or alternative tool references, so guidance is only implied.

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