nvd_cve

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine operational context beyond annotations — the environment-read API key and the fact that metric sources are kept distinct rather than merged — but says nothing about behavior without a key (rate limits, error mode) or pagination/response size, which matters for an open-world external call.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the credential note. Every clause carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the credential note covers the main setup surprise. What remains missing is the routing context against four sibling vulnerability tools, which is the largest gap for a single-purpose 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the only format guidance is the machine-readable pattern ^[cC][vV][eE]-[0-9]{4}-[0-9]{4,}$ and maxLength 64. The description never mentions cve_id at all, so it neither confirms the CVE-YYYY-NNNN format nor explains the looser 4+ digit sequence; the parameter is largely self-evident, keeping this at baseline rather than lower.

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 ("Get an NVD CVE") and adds that metric-source attribution is preserved, which hints at a distinctive return shape versus a plain lookup. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like osv_query, osv_vuln, or kev_check — the agent must infer the NVD-vs-OSV-vs-KEV split from the name alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus osv_vuln, osv_query, kev_check, or epss, all of which surface vulnerability data. The only usage-adjacent content is the note that NVD_API_KEY comes from the environment, which is a precondition rather than a routing rule.

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