exploit_lookup

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

Annotations indicate a safe read operation (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false). The description adds rich behavioral context: exact sources queried, response structure (sources, exploits array with fields), next_calls logic explaining why certain pivots are avoided, and rate limit information. No contradictions with annotations.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured with numbered sources and clear sections. Every sentence adds value: usage guidance, source breakdown, return fields, pairing recommendations, rate limits. Very minor deduction for density that could be slightly streamlined.

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 (three data sources, nested response structure, conditional next_calls logic, rate limits, and integration with sibling tools), the description covers all necessary context. The output schema exists and is referenced, so return values are explained adequately.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single required parameter (cve_id), the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's format hint (CVE-YYYY-NNNNN examples). It reinforces the parameter's role within the exploit lookup context but doesn't introduce new semantic details, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool searches public exploits/PoC for a specific CVE across three named sources (GitHub Advisory Database, Shodan CVEDB, ExploitDB), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like cve_lookup which provides CVE metadata rather than exploit evidence.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use to assess if a vulnerability has weaponized exploits in the wild; run after cve_lookup'. It also details how to pair with kev_detail and cwe_lookup based on conditions, and includes rate limits (Free: 100/hr, Pro: 1000/hr).

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