cves_by_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: filtering capabilities (KEV, EPSS, date ranges), pagination support, and return content ('detailed vulnerability information including severity scores and impact assessments'). However, it omits details like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's read-only/destructive, leaving gaps for a mutation-sensitive agent.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences: purpose, features, and return value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds useful information without redundancy. Minor improvement could be made by integrating features more seamlessly, but it's efficient overall.

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?

Given 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of functionality and return content. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like rate limits or error cases, and does not fully compensate for the absence of output schema, leaving the agent uncertain about the exact response structure.

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 schema fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning filtering and sorting options (e.g., 'KEV status', 'EPSS score') without providing additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 specific action ('Search for vulnerabilities affecting specific products or CPEs') and resource ('CVEs'), distinguishing it from siblings like cve_lookup (likely general CVE lookup) and cpe_lookup (CPE-specific). The verb 'search' with the qualifier 'affecting specific products or CPEs' provides precise scope.

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 context through 'Supports filtering by KEV status, sorting by EPSS score, date ranges, and pagination,' suggesting when to use it for filtered searches. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like cve_lookup or cpe_lookup, and does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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