contrastapi

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It reveals nothing about whether this is read-only, what data source is queried, rate limits, return format, or whether results include full CVE details or summaries.

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?

While brief, this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. Two words provide insufficient information for a 4-parameter search tool with multiple siblings. The single 'sentence' does not earn its place as a useful description.

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?

Completely inadequate for a tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema. The description fails to explain the search domain (local DB vs external API), result structure, or differentiation from related CVE tools, leaving critical gaps in agent understanding.

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%, documenting all four parameters (product, severity, days, limit). The description adds no additional parameter context, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Cve Search' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name with spaces added. It fails to specify what CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures) means, what the search returns, or how it differs from sibling tools like cve_lookup, cve_recent, or cve_kev.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus the four sibling CVE tools (cve_kev, cve_lookup, cve_recent, cve_search). No mention of prerequisites, filters, or search scope.

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