cve_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Search CVEs' discloses no behavior: no output format, no rate limits, no indication of read-only vs. mutating, no error semantics. This is a completely opaque description for a search tool.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It omits essential context that a few additional words could provide, making the brevity a deficiency rather than a strength.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the return format, the effect of 'exact', or any search semantics. Given the rich sibling context and the tool's apparent role in CVE research, this is a major gap.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter meaning. The 'query' and 'exact' parameters are left entirely unexplained; even the meaning of 'exact' is not addressed. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'Search CVEs' clearly states the verb (search) and resource (CVEs), making the core purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like cve_package_audit or exploit_search, so it misses the highest bar for sibling distinction.

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 tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preferred use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where sibling tools would be more appropriate.

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