search_kev

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description's behavioral disclosure is minimal. It does not add context about rate limits, data freshness, or any side effects beyond what annotations provide. The description does not contradict 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key filters. It is concise but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points). However, it is efficient without waste.

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 (8 optional params, 0 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and filters. It does not need to explain return values. Missing a note on default limit, but overall complete for a search tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for each parameter. The description only lists filter categories (vendor, product, date, ransomware), which adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already carries the load.

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 CISA KEV catalog with specific filters (vendor, product, date, ransomware). The tool name aligns with the purpose, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like search_cve which searches a broader CVE database. This is a high-purpose clarity score.

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 implies usage by listing filters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_cve). No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites. Usage context is implied but not explicitly defined.

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