CVE keyword search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely non-structured context: that results are recency-ordered and that the tool is not version-aware. It says nothing about result caps, pagination, or NVD key/rate-limit behavior, so the addition is real but modest against an already-annotated tool.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it does, the version caveat and alternative, then the query-construction rule. Front-loaded and zero waste.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternative routing, and query shape, and briefly indicates the return set ('most recent matching CVEs'). The one gap is the undocumented investigation_id parameter, which an agent would have to guess at.

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 carry the parameter burden. It does add meaning for search_term ('real product or vendor names', 'never fragments of a name', examples), but investigation_id is never mentioned anywhere in the description or schema, leaving one of two parameters fully opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Keyword search of NVD') plus the return scope ('most recent matching CVEs') with concrete examples ('grafana', 'log4j'). It also explicitly separates itself from version_specific_vulnerability_check by declaring it is 'not version-aware', so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing ('prefer version_specific_vulnerability_check when a version is known') and even a call-budget rule: 'at most twice per product (product, then vendor)'. It closes with a negative constraint ('never fragments of a name'), leaving little to inference.

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