List recent CVEs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful runtime context beyond those annotations: results are newest first by publish date, NVD caps look-back at 120 days, and the JSON response shape includes pagination fields like total, has_more, and next_offset. This gives an agent clear expectations without overstating side effects.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose statement, a compact Args list, return info, and examples. It includes some redundancy with the schema, but the repetition is acceptable because it makes the definition self-contained. Every section earns its place, and there is no filler or vague prose.

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 tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it documents return fields, ordering, pagination, example queries, and KEV filtering. The only notable gap is the absence of explicit sibling guidance, especially the relationship to cve_get_kev and cve_search, which would make tool selection even more robust. Overall, an agent has enough information to call this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters; the baseline is therefore 3. The description adds value by restating the parameters in a compact action-oriented list and, more importantly, providing example mappings from user intent to parameter values, such as 'critical CVEs this week' -> days=7, severity='CRITICAL'. It does not introduce new syntax but does help an agent translate requests into parameters.

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: 'List CVEs published within a recent look-back window.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from detail, search, and exploit-related siblings by emphasizing the time-bounded, monitoring-oriented scope. The phrase 'real-time monitoring of newly disclosed vulnerabilities' makes the intended purpose immediately recognizable.

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?

It provides an explicit use case: real-time monitoring of newly disclosed vulnerabilities, and it gives two natural-language example queries with mapped parameter settings. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool versus siblings like cve_search or cve_get_kev, leaving some routing to inference.

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