kev_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes a read-only search operation, which is correct, but does not disclose response format, pagination, or any potential limitations. The description is adequate for a simple search but lacks depth.

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 achieves maximum conciseness with two sentences. The first sentence contains the main action and resource, and the second adds context. No extraneous words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description could be more complete by mentioning what is returned (e.g., CVE IDs, due dates). However, it is functional and provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter concepts (vendor, product, keyword) without adding extra context, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the action ('Search'), the resource ('CISA KEV catalog'), and the purpose ('Find known exploited vulnerabilities for specific technologies'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like kev_check or kev_recent, which prevents a 5.

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 searching by vendor, product, or keyword, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., kev_recent for recent entries). 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.