cve_lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the comprehensive data returned (CVSS scores, EPSS, KEV status, etc.), which adds useful context about output behavior, but does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with external API dependencies.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and source, and the second enumerates the returned details. Every sentence adds essential information with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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 (querying external vulnerability data) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description does well by detailing the comprehensive return data. However, it could improve by mentioning response format or error scenarios, slightly limiting completeness for an API-dependent 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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'cve' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 specific action ('Query detailed vulnerability information') and resource ('from Shodan's CVEDB'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cpe_lookup or cves_by_product by focusing on individual CVE details rather than product-based queries or broader searches.

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 context by specifying it queries 'detailed vulnerability information' for a CVE identifier, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cves_by_product or shodan_search. It provides clear intent but lacks explicit comparison or exclusion guidance.

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