Search Vulnerabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value: states data is 'validated against CVE.org and enriched', reveals the COMPACT card return shape, and notes the default sort='trending'. Slightly less on pagination/rate limits but the compact-return disclosure is a strong contribution beyond annotations.

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 tightly-packed sentences with zero filler. All heavy detail is front-loaded in the first sentence. Slightly dense—the second sentence lists many filter options that partially duplicate the schema—but no wasted words. The return-format disclosure in the description is genuinely additional value, not repetition.

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 read-only search tool with 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, this is complete. The description explains data provenance, enrichment sources, all filter dimensions, sort modes, defaults, and the compact return shape—plus points the agent to get_cve for more detail. Nothing material is left undocumented.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: explains the card fields (cve_id, severity, cvss, epss_percentile, is_kev, etc.), reveals the default sort behavior, and explains that free-text query 'matches id + description'. This value-add justifies a 4.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Query the real-time CVE feed' with explicit sourcing (CVE.org, CVSS, EPSS, CISA KEV, PoCs, nuclei). Distinguishes from siblings: notably get_cve is referenced as the companion for full detail, and search_threats/search_iocs are different resource types.

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?

Extremely explicit: names all sort modes, filter dimensions, and return format. Explicitly says 'call get_cve(id) for full detail', providing a clear when-to-use-alternative instruction. Enumerates every available filter so the agent knows exactly what this tool supports.

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