NIST NVD CPE Product Lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context by specifying return fields (CPE 2.3 URI, title, deprecation status) and the purpose of finding exact CPE strings. This adds value beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity, rich annotations, and presence of output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, return type, and usage context, with no gaps.

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 detailed parameter descriptions including examples for 'keyword' and bounds for numeric params. The tool description does not add extra param semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool searches the CPE dictionary for product identifiers used by CVEs, and specifically mentions returning CPE 2.3 URI, title, and deprecation status. It distinguishes itself from sibling nvd.cves.search by noting it should be used 'before searching CVEs by affected product'.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool to find exact CPE strings before searching CVEs, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools beyond the implied relation to nvd.cves.search.

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