lookup_cve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the payload shape (description, CVSS score, references) and the upstream source (NVD), which signals freshness and provenance. It says nothing about NVD rate limits, API-key requirements, or behavior when a CVE ID does not exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that spends its words on verb, resource, return fields, and data source. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the field list is a reasonable stand-in for return values. The missing pieces are the identifier format and not-found/error behavior, which matter because the schema documents neither.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the parameter is an identifier rather than a keyword, but never states the expected format (e.g. CVE-YYYY-NNNN) or whether a bare number is accepted.

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?

Specific verb (fetch) and resource (CVE details) with the data source named (NVD) and the returned fields enumerated. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling search_cves, leaving the ID-lookup vs. keyword-search distinction to inference from the name.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not guidance and never mentions search_cves as the alternative for discovery. An agent that only has a vendor or product name gets no routing hint that this tool is the wrong choice.

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