list_nvd_entries

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds no operational detail beyond filtering—no mention of pagination behavior, default ordering, or result limits beyond what the schema's 'limit' field already states.

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, front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource, the table, and the two primary filters. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 filtered-list tool with full schema coverage and rich read-only annotations, the core calling information is present. However, it omits routing against the obvious sibling get_nvd_entry_by_cve and gives no hint about return shape or ordering, leaving a notable 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 all four parameters (cve, limit, query, score_min) are already well documented. The description restates two of them (CVE substring, minimum CVSS v3 score) without adding syntax, matching semantics, or interaction rules beyond the schema—baseline 3.

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 ("List NVD entries") and even names the backing table (sn_vul_nvd_entry), plus the two filtering dimensions. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling get_nvd_entry_by_cve, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word "List" plus filter options suggests bulk/exploratory retrieval rather than single-record lookup, but the description never names get_nvd_entry_by_cve as the alternative for fetching one specific CVE. An agent must infer the routing.

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