otx_cve

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing the return contents ('related pulses and indicators'), which matters because no output schema exists — though it says nothing about auth requirements or rate limits on the OTX API.

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, zero filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the return-content note second. Nothing repeats the tool name or the schema.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return shape adequately. Minor gaps remain around preconditions (valid CVE format, API key/availability) and response structure, but nothing that would cause a mis-invocation.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema itself supplies the CVE-ID pattern and an example (CVE-2024-1234). The description adds no additional semantics about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Look up threat intelligence for a CVE') plus the backing source ('via AlienVault OTX'). The CVE resource focus clearly separates it from sibling tools scoped to IPs, domains, hashes, and pulses (otx_ip, otx_domain, otx_hash, otx_search_pulses).

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?

Usage is implied: reach for this when you hold a CVE ID and want enrichment. There is no explicit 'use this when / use X instead' routing, no mention of the required CVE-ID format as a precondition, and no exclusion cases relative to vulners_id or threatfoxSearch.

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