list_by_cve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Find' implies a read-only search, and the scope is stated, but nothing is disclosed about the result shape, pagination behavior tied to the limit parameter, or failure behavior for malformed CVE identifiers. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the key action and resource, then appends the important scope qualifier ('across all rule sources'). Zero filler or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter list tool with fully documented parameters, the description is mostly sufficient. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves unstated what the returned detection rules look like, and it offers no routing guidance relative to the closely related cve_to_detection and nvd_cve_lookup siblings.

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%, with both parameters documented: cve_id includes a format example and limit states its default. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond echoing the CVE filter, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a concrete resource ('detection rules tagged with a specific CVE identifier'), and a scope boundary ('across all rule sources'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling list_by_* tools that filter on different dimensions (list_by_mitre, list_by_severity, list_by_process_name) and from per-source searches.

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 phrase 'across all rule sources' implies this is the source-agnostic CVE search, contrasting with per-source tools like anssi_search or jpcert_search. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related CVE-adjacent siblings like cve_to_detection, nvd_cve_lookup, or search_detections, leaving the routing largely to inference.

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