search_cves

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a paginated list of CVE summaries and mentions the filter dimensions. For a read-oriented search tool, this is adequate behavioral disclosure, though it omits details like error handling, pagination defaults, or whether results are sorted. Still, it is a clear and honest overview.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and directly states the return type. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 the complexity (15 parameters, 0 required) and that the schema already documents all parameters, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output (paginated CVE summaries). There is no output schema, but the description indicates the output is a list of summaries, which is sufficient for a search tool. It could be slightly more complete by stating pagination defaults or result field, but it is not a significant 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level grouping of filter types (date, severity, etc.) which can help the agent understand available query capabilities, but it does not add extra meaning beyond what each parameter's description in the schema already provides. No compensation needed since coverage is complete.

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 Red Hat CVEs by multiple specific criteria (date, severity, CVSSv3 score, CWE, package, product, advisory, Bugzilla ID) and returns a paginated list of CVE summaries. The verb 'Search' and resource 'Red Hat CVEs' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like get_cve_details by explicitly targeting a list result.

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?

The description implies usage for searching/filtering CVEs but does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives like search_csaf or get_cve_details. It is clear for a search tool, but without exclusions or explicit differentiation, it leaves some inference to the agent.

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