CVE lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying exactly what data is returned (CVSS score, affected CPEs, and current vulnerable host count), which is useful for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning: it names the source (CVEDB), the purpose (specific CVE details), and the key outputs, with no filler.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the main data fields, enabling an agent to select and invoke it correctly without needing further elaboration.

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%, with the parameter cve_id fully described as 'CVE identifier' and an example provided. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema beyond reinforcing that it is for a specific CVE, which is already implied by the schema field name and description.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource: 'details for a specific CVE from Shodan's CVEDB'. It enumerates what is included (CVSS score, affected CPEs, host count), which differentiates it from sibling tools like shodan_cves_by_product.

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 clearly implies usage: use this when you have a specific CVE ID and need its details. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or mention alternatives, but the phrase 'for a specific CVE' provides clear context.

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