Get CVSS Details

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds rate limits (30/hr free, 500/hr pro) and details the return structure (fields like base_score, metrics object). No contradictions. A score of 4 reflects the added value beyond 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core action. It is relatively long but each sentence adds value, covering purpose, return fields, usage guidelines, and rate limits. Could be slightly more concise but maintains good density.

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 output schema exists, the description comprehensively lists all return fields (canonicalized vector, version, base_score, base_severity, metrics, temporal/environmental scores, summary, verdict). It also covers error handling for v2 vectors. Fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the vector parameter. The description adds context by providing an example vector string and explicitly stating v2 vectors are rejected. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it parses a CVSS v3.x vector string into a per-metric breakdown and recomputed base score. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cve_lookup and exploit_lookup by focusing on CVSS vector parsing, which no other sibling tool does.

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 to use: to translate raw CVSS strings and verify upstream NVD scoring. Also states v2 vectors are rejected and directs users to cvss_v2_field on cve_lookup for v2 details. Clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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