Get CVE change history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-structured behavior: a 1-hour cache and the 120-day maximum window, plus the opaque-cursor pagination model. It does not mention rate limits or auth, so it stops short of a 5.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by filtering, caching, and pagination constraints. No filler and every clause carries operational 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a single-CVE read with nested filter objects, the description covers scope, filters, cache TTL, window limit, and pagination, leaving nothing an agent needs before calling it.

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 cveId, cursor, pageSize, eventName and changeBetween are already fully documented at the schema level. The description restates eventName and changeBetween and the 120-day cap but adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond the schema, 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 and resource ('Return the change history of one CVE') and enumerates the concrete event types returned, so an agent can distinguish it from nvd_get_cve, nvd_get_cve_summary, and nvd_get_modified_cves (which is multi-CVE) 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?

Usage is implied through the description of filters ('Filter by eventName or changeBetween') and pagination, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative such as nvd_get_modified_cves for bulk change tracking. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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