nist-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, repeatable operations. The description adds context about searching validated modules but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what constitutes a match (e.g., substring vs exact). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides concrete example queries that illustrate usage. It's front-loaded and efficiently structured without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool has annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), an output schema exists, and schema coverage is 71%, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and usage examples but could benefit from more explicit guidance on alternatives or behavioral details like pagination (implied by limit/offset parameters).

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 71%, providing good documentation for parameters like vendor, module_name, and algorithm. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema, but the examples hint at usage (e.g., 'OpenSSL' for vendor/module, 'AES-256-GCM' for algorithm). Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.

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 searches for 'FIPS 140-2/3 validated cryptographic modules' with specific example queries that illustrate its function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_cves or search_controls by focusing on cryptographic modules rather than vulnerabilities or controls.

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 provides implied usage through example queries ('Is OpenSSL FIPS validated?' or 'Which modules support AES-256-GCM at Level 2?'), which suggest when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over other search tools like search_cves or search_controls, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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