cve_by_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the data source (NVD) and search method (exact match). However, it does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or behavior when no results are found. The safety profile (read-only) is implied but not explicit.

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 two short sentences with a clear example, front-loading the core action and search method. Every word is necessary, and there is no verbose or redundant information.

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 search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what, how, and examples. It could mention the typical return format (list of CVEs with metadata) but is largely complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds context: 'exact match' clarifies the search mode and examples illustrate usage. This adds value beyond the schema's descriptions without redundancy.

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 the verb (Search), resource (CVEs), and method (by vendor or product name, NVD keyword exact match). Examples ('Apache Log4j', 'Microsoft Exchange') solidify understanding. No sibling tool duplicates this exact purpose, so it is well-distinguished.

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 implies usage for finding vulnerabilities by product/vendor but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like cve_compare, cve_enrich, or cve_trending. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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