cve_enrich

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions parallel queries and the type of data returned, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, side effects, rate limits, or idempotency.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the purpose. While it packs a lot of information, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., splitting sources and outputs). Overall, it efficiently conveys the functionality.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main sources and return elements. It is missing details on score computation, but still provides a good overview of what the tool does.

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% for the single parameter 'cveId', which already has a clear description. The tool description adds context about enrichment but does not enhance parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 performs 'Full CVE enrichment' by querying multiple sources in parallel, and the list of sources and outputs distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools that focus on individual sources (e.g., nvd_get, epss_score).

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 the tool is for comprehensive vulnerability intelligence, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or when not to use it. Context from sibling names suggests it aggregates, but no direct guidance is given.

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