Search CPEs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful operational context ('Free, no API key', CVEDB source) but says nothing about result size, pagination, or what happens when no CPE matches.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the core action and input are front-loaded before the cost/source note.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should at least sketch the return value (a list of CPE 2.3 strings) and pagination via skip/limit. Annotations are rich enough to cover the safety profile, but the parameter and return-shape gaps keep it at minimum viable.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden and it only addresses the required 'product' input implicitly. The skip and limit parameters are completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving pagination behavior unexplained.

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?

Specific verb ('look up') plus a precise resource ('CPE 2.3 identifiers') and an input qualifier ('for a product name'), with a named source (CVEDB). It is clearly distinguishable from CVE/exploit siblings like shodan_cve and shodan_exploits, though it does not explicitly say how it relates to them.

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 indication of when to choose this over siblings such as shodan_cve or shodan_cves, nor that its typical role is resolving a product name into a CPE before a CVE lookup. 'Free, no API key' describes cost/auth, not when to use the tool.

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