Search CPE Match Criteria

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's job is to add operational context — and it does: 24-hour caching, cursor-based pagination, and the upstream rejection of partial keywords and version ranges in matchStringSearch. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent cannot infer from the annotations or schema.

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?

Three densely packed sentences with the resource definition front-loaded, then the filter requirement, then the two gotchas (matchString syntax, caching/pagination). No filler, nothing repeated from the schema verbatim.

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 six-parameter, nested-object search with an output schema present, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually, the filter precondition, the pagination mechanics, the cache window, and the input-format trap. An agent can call it correctly without opening anything else.

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, but the description adds real meaning on top: matchStringSearch must be a complete CPE match string with the cpe:2.3:a:vendor:product:*... form, and the lastModified window is capped at 120 days. It does not add anything further about cursor freshness or pageSize, which the schema already handles.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (CPE Match Criteria) and explains what the resource is: the join that links CVEs to CPE names and version ranges. That implicitly separates it from nvd_search_cpes / nvd_get_cpe, but no sibling is named explicitly and no exclusion is stated.

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?

Gives a hard precondition ('At least one filter is required') and enumerates the four admissible filters plus the 120-day ceiling on lastModified, so an agent knows how to form a valid call. It does not, however, say when to reach for this tool over nvd_search_cpes or how it complements nvd_get_cve.

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