cves_by_product

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the tool is known to be a read-only, broad-scope operation. The description adds value by disclosing the return content ('detailed vulnerability information including severity scores and impact assessments') and mentions pagination support, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the supporting capabilities summarized in the second sentence. It is not overly verbose, though the second sentence packs multiple features into one clause. No extraneous information is present, and the structure is logical.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, all with schema descriptions) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides a sufficient overview, including the two search modes (product name vs. CPE identifier) and the return of severity/impact info. It could be more explicit about the relationship between product and cpe23 (e.g., whether they can be combined), but overall it covers the key usage context.

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 each parameter is already documented in the schema (e.g., skip, count, cpe23, limit, is_kev, product, dates, sort_by_epss). The description adds only a high-level summary (supports filtering by KEV, sorting by EPSS, date ranges, pagination) without adding new semantic detail. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for fully covered schemas.

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 ('Search') and a precise resource ('vulnerabilities affecting specific products or CPEs'), and lists the supported filtering/sorting capabilities. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cve_lookup (individual CVE lookup) and cpe_lookup (CPE details), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description clearly conveys that this tool is for product/CPE-based vulnerability searches and mentions the search options (by product name or CPE 2.3). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools, such as using cve_lookup for a specific CVE or cpe_lookup for CPE metadata. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it earns a 3.

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