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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds valuable context: absence semantics ('a null field means this dataset holds no such record'), field meaning ('fixed = first patched build; affected_through = last VULNERABLE build'), and auth behavior. It does not cover rate limits or errors, but covers key nuances.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place: content enumeration, auth note, and absence semantics. It is longer than the minimal but information-dense, so it's well-structured.

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?

The description lists the main components of the returned intelligence record and explains critical data semantics, especially for fixed/affected_through and null handling. Since there is no output schema, this level of detail is important and largely sufficient, though it omits fields like error handling or pagination (which are less relevant for a single-record fetch).

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with an example. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides—it reiterates that the tool is for one CVE but doesn't provide additional format details. Baseline 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's purpose: 'Full intelligence record for one CVE' – a specific verb + resource. It enumerates the content areas (CVSS, EPSS, KEV, remote-detection, Sigma, etc.), which distinguishes it from siblings like search_cves (search vs. specific fetch) and get_updates.

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 when to use this tool: when you need a full record for a specific CVE. It provides authentication guidance ('No key required over MCP...') and clarifies the semantics of fixed/affected_through. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear enough for tool selection.

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