nvd_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (CVSS scores, descriptions, affected products) but omits key behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, rate limits, or whether searches are exact or fuzzy. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences: the first explains what the tool does, the second what it returns. No redundant information, and the purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the search capabilities and output fields. However, it misses details like default limit, maximum results, date format requirements, and error conditions. Sibling tool count is high but not addressed. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description summarizes filter types (keyword, severity, CWE ID, date range) but adds no new semantic meaning or usage details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 the tool's purpose: search CVEs by keyword, severity, CWE ID, or date range. It specifies what is returned (CVSS scores, descriptions, affected products), making the function unambiguous and distinguishing it from more specialized sibling tools.

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 is provided on when to use this search tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., cve_by_product, cve_trending). The description does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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