Look up CVE

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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing the exact payload shape (CVSS v3.x score/vector/severity, dates, weaknesses, CPEs), that CPEs are trimmed, that references are capped at 10, and — critically — that third-party text is quarantined in an "untrusted_fetched_text" field to be treated as data, not instructions. That injection-safety note is a substantive behavioral trait the readOnly/idempotent hints cannot convey.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first defines the payload, the second defines the trust boundary for that payload. Front-loaded with the action and source, with the security caveat immediately after.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe return values — and it does, listing the field groups and the reference cap. Combined with the untrusted-text warning, an agent has everything needed to call it and to interpret the response safely.

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 single parameter already carries a regex pattern and an example (CVE-2021-44228), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional syntax or formatting guidance beyond that, which is the correct baseline 3.

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 ("Fetch a CVE record"), names the authoritative source (NIST NVD), and enumerates exactly which fields come back. No sibling tool overlaps, so no differentiation burden exists, and an agent can tell instantly this is the CVE-detail lookup.

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 context of use is clear: given a CVE id, retrieve its record from NVD. No exclusions or alternatives are stated, but the sibling list contains no competing CVE tool, so there is nothing to disambiguate against.

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