Get a CPE name

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), yet the description adds substantial behavior that structured fields do not: a 3-page pattern-search bound, a CPE_NOT_FOUND error shape with scanned/total counts, the fact that the upstream search ignores the deprecation filter, and a 7-day cache. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs to reason about failure and staleness.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the key-selection rule, then failure behavior, then caching. Every sentence carries distinct operational information with no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the description instead covers the one output case that matters (CPE_NOT_FOUND). For a two-parameter, read-only lookup with a documented fallback path, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and both properties carry descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by declaring cpeNameId 'preferred, exact' versus cpeName, which is only 'resolved by upstream pattern search' — a semantic distinction the schema does not convey.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Return one entry of the NVD Official CPE Dictionary'), immediately scoping it to a single-entry lookup. The mention of nvd_search_cpes on failure distinguishes it from the sibling search tools without the agent needing to open either schema.

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?

It states the selection rule explicitly: 'Provide exactly one of cpeNameId (preferred, exact) or cpeName', and names the alternative (nvd_search_cpes) for the failure case. It also explains what happens when the exact name is outside the scanned window, so the agent knows the escape hatch.

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