NVD CVE lookup

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by listing what the record contains and explaining that version-check results already carry severity, EPSS, KEV, exploit and fix data. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by the exclusion and alternative use case. No wasted text.

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 summarizes the record fields and the main usage boundary. It is nearly complete for a lookup tool, but the unexplained investigation_id parameter keeps it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies cve_id via format and example, but investigation_id is not explained anywhere in the description or schema, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

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 (full NVD record for one CVE), gives a concrete CVE example, and enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from cve_search and version_specific_vulnerability_check.

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?

Explicitly says when not to use it: CVEs already returned by a version check. It also says when to use it: a CVE with no existing record, or to read full description and references. The alternative path is named directly.

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