nvd_cve_search

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

With readOnlyHint: true, the description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the return fields (CVE IDs, descriptions, CVSS scores, severity levels, publication dates) and valid severity values. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but it provides value beyond the annotation.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence contributes useful information (action, return fields, valid severity values) with no redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately lists return fields. It does not mention default limit behavior or that all parameters are optional, but the schema covers those details. Overall, it is adequately complete for a search tool with 5 optional 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the severity enum from the schema and mentions filter types, but does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as interactions between parameters (e.g., pubStartDate/pubEndDate pairing).

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 CVE vulnerabilities with specific filter criteria (keyword, CVSS severity, date range) and lists return fields. It is a specific verb+resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling nvd_cve_detail tool, though the naming implies a search vs. detail relationship.

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. It does not mention nvd_cve_detail or provide context such as 'use this for broad discovery searches' or 'use nvd_cve_detail for a specific CVE.'

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