find_cpe_name

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds useful behavioral details beyond them: best matches are returned first, and deprecated names show their replacement. It does not discuss rate limits or auth, but those are not central for this lookup tool.

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 tightly written and front-loaded: purpose first, downstream usage second, result ordering and deprecation behavior third. The argument example is brief and useful, with no redundant sentences.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly: the expected input shape, the returned CPE format, ordering behavior, and deprecation handling. No important invocation detail is missing.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that the product parameter is a product name and providing representative examples such as "curl", "node.js", and "apache http server". That adds meaningful guidance beyond the bare string schema.

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 and resource: look up the exact NVD CPE name for a product. It also clarifies the exact format expected by a downstream tool, search_recent_cves(cpes=...), making its role distinct from the CVE-search siblings.

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?

It clearly explains the context of use: resolving a product name into a CPE string before passing it to search_recent_cves. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or list alternatives, but the intended workflow is clear.

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