search_cve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only that the source is NVD and does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, result ordering, or other operational details.

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 brief and front-loaded, with no wasted wording. However, it is so terse that it underspecifies the tool for a four-parameter search operation.

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 search tool with four parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter guidance, result behavior, pagination semantics, and sibling-tool selection criteria.

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 only 25%, with keyword, startIndex, and resultsPerPage undocumented in the schema. The description only implies keyword search and does not compensate by explaining matching behavior, pagination, or result limits.

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 clear verb and resource: search the NVD CVE database. It is specific enough to distinguish a CVE search from unrelated tools, but it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as get_cve_detail, get_recent_cves, or circl_cve_lookup.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies keyword search but does not mention when to use get_cve_detail, get_recent_cves, or the circl_cve_* siblings.

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