Search vulnerabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through 'Search and filter,' but does not explicitly state that it does not modify data, nor does it mention pagination behavior or return format (though output schema exists). The description adds some context beyond the schema (e.g., returns lists) but lacks depth about side effects or edge cases.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the action and filter dimensions, the second clarifies the use case. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or irrelevant detail, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 the tool's complexity (13 optional parameters, many enums, output schema), the description covers the essential context: the purpose, main filter categories, and the fact that it returns lists. The output schema covers return-value structure, and the filter dimensions are enumerated. It lacks explicit details about default pagination or search semantics, but this is adequately handled by the schema and the concise use-case note.

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 groups parameters into conceptual filters (text, vendor, severity, status, CVSS score, publication date), which adds high-level meaning. However, it stops short of mapping each filter to specific parameter names (e.g., 'text' → query) or explaining nuances like date range pairs, so it only partially clarifies the 13 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 uses a specific verb ('Search and filter') and identifies the resource ('vulnerabilities') with an explicit list of filter dimensions (text, vendor, severity, status, CVSS score, publication date). The phrase 'Use this for lists of matching CVEs' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vulnerability, indicating this is for list retrieval rather than single-record lookup.

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 provides clear usage context by stating 'Use this for lists of matching CVEs,' which tells the agent when to select this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude cases, but the list-focused guidance is sufficient given the sibling tool names (e.g., get_vulnerability). No misleading or contradictory usage advice is present.

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