Search CPE names

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

With annotations already covering read-only/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, the description still adds substantial non-obvious behavior: deprecated CPEs filtered locally unless includeDeprecated, totalResults being the upstream count that can exceed returned items or be positive with an empty items array, and 24-hour caching. This is exactly the operational context annotations cannot express.

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 dense sentences, all load-bearing, with the core scope stated first and constraints/edge cases after. The totalResults explanation is the longest clause but justifies its length because it prevents a misinterpretation of an empty result set.

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 an 8-parameter, nested-object tool with an output schema, the description covers the prerequisites, the local-vs-upstream filtering split, cache lifetime, and cursor lifetime/binding — everything an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret pagination. Return-value shape is rightly left to the output schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine cross-parameter semantics: cursors must be reused with the same filters and pageSize, the 120-day cap on the date window, and that includeDeprecated is a local filter reflected in meta.filteredOut. keywordExactMatch and cpeMatchString get no extra narrative, but the schema already documents them.

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 and resource ("Search the NVD Official CPE Dictionary") and enumerates the four filter modes (keyword, match string, criteria UUID, last-modified window), so the agent knows exactly what the tool operates on. It is clear it deals with the CPE Dictionary rather than CPE matches, but it never names the nearest sibling (nvd_search_cpe_matches or nvd_get_cpe) to harden the boundary.

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?

"At least one filter is required; date windows are limited to 120 days" gives a firm precondition the agent must satisfy before calling. It stops short of routing guidance — no statement of when to prefer nvd_get_cpe or nvd_search_cpe_matches instead — so the alternative-selection layer is missing.

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