Get CVE details

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

Annotations establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, but the description adds behavior they cannot express: a 24-hour cache and a documented degradation path where a stale copy is returned during an NVD outage with a warning surfaced in meta.warnings. That is real operational context about freshness and failure modes.

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?

Three dense sentences with no waste: the payload comes first, the sibling routing second, the caching/outage caveat last. Nothing is repeated and every clause carries new information.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description still covers the caching horizon and outage fallback. For a single-record fetch tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations, nothing an agent needs 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the three optional toggles (includeRaw, includeReferences, includeConfigurations) and the cveId pattern are already fully documented in the schema. The description implies the default shape of the record but adds no syntax or default-override guidance beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Return) and resource (the full NVD record for one CVE) and enumerates the payload contents: description, CVSS metrics, CWEs, configurations, references and CISA KEV status. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from nvd_get_cve_summary and nvd_get_cves, so an agent can pick it without opening any schema.

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?

Names two concrete alternatives with the condition that selects each: nvd_get_cve_summary for the essentials and nvd_get_cves for a batch. The full/summary/batch trichotomy is exactly the routing decision an agent needs.

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