search_cves

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: no rate-limit or API-key context for NVD, no pagination behavior, no result ordering, no indication of result volume. Only the mutability profile can be inferred from the word 'Search'.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and the example appended where it helps. It is not padded, but it is thin for a tool with two largely undocumented parameters.

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, so the description should say what a result looks like and how paging works, but it does neither. For a search tool with an undocumented pagination parameter and a same-domain sibling, this leaves the agent guessing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'keyword' means a term like a product name, which is genuinely useful, but results_per_page is never mentioned and the keyword's matching semantics (substring, exact, CVE-ID form) remain undefined.

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?

Specific verb (Search) plus resource (NVD database for CVEs) with a concrete example of the keyword ('e.g. a product name'). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool lookup_cve, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the two to pick.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus lookup_cve, which appears to be the sibling for direct CVE retrieval. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no note that this is keyword-based discovery rather than exact-ID lookup.

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