CVEs by product

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds the 'recent/known' qualifier and an example CPE, but does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or any potential quirks like CPE format requirements beyond the example. This is similar to the TDQS 4.3 example, which scored a 3.

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 a single sentence with an example and a usage note. It is front-loaded, contains zero filler, and every piece of information earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it does, what input is needed (with a direct example), and when to use it. The agent can confidently invoke the tool with minimal guesswork.

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% with both 'cpe23' and 'limit' already described. The description's example adds a concrete illustration, but that is a minor addition over the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific action ('List recent/known CVEs') and resource ('given a CPE product+version'), with a concrete example. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling shodan_cve_lookup tool, but the focus on CPE rather than CVE ID provides implicit differentiation.

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 phrase 'Useful for tracking what's currently going on for a specific technology' provides a clear context for when to use the tool. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the use case is specific enough to guide an agent.

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