nvd_cve_detail

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses return content (CVSS scores, attack vectors, CPE, CWE, references), adding behavioral context about what the tool provides. Does not contradict annotations, though it omits potential rate limits or errors.

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, no filler, and each sentence contributes meaning. The description front-loads the action and efficiently lists the key return fields.

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 simple one-parameter detail endpoint with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and return values. Missing the response format is a minor gap, but the listed content details make it largely complete.

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 description coverage is 100% with a clear example for cveId. The description does not add extra parameter semantics, but the schema already documents the parameter adequately, meeting the baseline for full coverage.

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's function with a specific verb ('Get full details') and resource ('CVE vulnerability') identified by a CVE ID. It distinguishes itself from the sibling nvd_cve_search by emphasizing 'full details' rather than search.

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 when a CVE ID is already known ('by its CVE ID'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., nvd_cve_search for finding CVEs) or when not to use this tool. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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