cve_search

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

The description mentions it returns CVSS scores, descriptions, references, and weakness classifications, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. Since no annotations exist, the description could be more explicit about being read-only.

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 concise with clear sections, no redundant information, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, including the args list and examples.

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 has an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers parameters and usage well, but could briefly mention that results are from NVD, which it does. The description is sufficiently complete for agent use.

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?

All three parameters (keyword, cve_id, results_per_page) are clearly explained with examples and behavior (e.g., cve_id overrides keyword). This adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which lacks descriptions.

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 it searches the NVD for CVEs, specifying query types like keyword, CVE ID, or product name. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cve_package_audit or exploit_search, which have different purposes.

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 includes when to use the tool (to search for CVEs) and provides examples. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, though the purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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