One vulnerability in depth

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a notable behavioral detail: references are ordered 'patches first,' which is not inferable from annotations. It also specifies the KEV entry includes required action, due date, and ransomware status, providing output-shaping context. No contradiction with annotations, and the description adds value beyond them.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Everything about one CVE or advisory id') before listing specific data categories. Every clause adds substantive information, and there is no fluff or redundancy. It is efficient and well-structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (many data fields), the output schema exists (as indicated), and annotations cover safety, the description is remarkably complete. It enumerates all major data types returned, including priority tier reasoning, CWE, CVSS, CISA SSVC, KEV details, EPSS, affected products/packages, and references. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool is missing.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter with 'CVE or advisory id' and length constraints (coverage 100%). The description does not elaborate on the parameter format, validation, or examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since no additional semantic value is added.

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 the tool provides 'everything about one CVE or advisory id' and enumerates specific data categories (priority tier, CWE, CVSS, EPSS, affected products, etc.). This is a precise verb+resource definition that distinguishes it from siblings like package_vulns (focused on packages) and prioritize_vulns (ranking), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage: you call this when you have a specific CVE or advisory ID and need comprehensive details. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the title 'One vulnerability in depth' and the single 'id' parameter make the context clear. No explicit when-not or alternative routing is given, so it falls short of a 5.

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