lookup_cve

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing that the record is 'trimmed' and listing the concrete fields returned (severity, CVSS, EPSS, fix status, advisories), which an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the lookup action and scope, followed by the sibling routing. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates return fields, which is the main gap it needs to fill. Auth/rate-limit behavior is not mentioned, but for a simple read-only lookup this is a minor omission.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with the same CVE-2024-9137 example, so the description adds little beyond it. Slight credit for reinforcing the ID format and clarifying that lookup is by CVE id only, not device.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Look up one CVE by id') with a concrete example (CVE-2024-9137), and enumerates the returned fields so the agent knows exactly what the record contains. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling correlate_devices.

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?

Gives the negative condition ('It is not device specific') and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it ('to know whether a device is affected, use correlate_devices'). This is textbook routing guidance.

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