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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the data sources and does not explain the tool's behavior. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, whether it returns all three metrics in one response, how missing CVEs are handled, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the purpose itself.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the core purpose and data sources. Every word contributes meaning, and the structure is clean. It is appropriately brief for the limited information it conveys, though it could be expanded to address other dimensions.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description still leaves critical gaps. It does not explain how to correctly invoke the tool (the meaning of q), what to expect in the output, or when to prefer it over the many closely related sibling tools. The description is too sparse to fully enable correct usage without additional lookup.

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 schema only defines a parameter 'q' with no description and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates slightly by stating 'for a CVE', which implies q is a CVE identifier. However, it does not specify the expected format (e.g., CVE-YYYY-XXXX) or clarify whether q is optional given its default empty string. The hint is useful but insufficient for unambiguous parameter understanding.

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 'CVE Severity: CVSS + EPSS + KEV for a CVE' clearly indicates the tool provides severity information by combining three specific data sources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cve, epss, and kev by implying a composite result. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'fetch' or 'return'), making it slightly less direct than a full imperative description.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like cve, cvedetail, epss, or kev. It neither states explicit conditions nor contrasts with siblings. The purpose implies a composite use case, but the agent must infer that selecting this tool is appropriate when all three severity signals are needed together. No when-not guidance is present.

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