Get CVE summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the result is derived from a cached record sharing a 24 hour freshness window, which tells the agent results may be stale. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but the caching disclosure is the meaningful extra.

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 tight sentences: field inventory first, exclusions and the alternative second, freshness caveat last. Every sentence carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 no prose, yet the field list usefully frames the compactness tradeoff. Combined with the named alternative and the cache-freshness disclosure, an agent has everything needed to select and call this correctly.

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% and there is only one parameter (cveId) with a regex pattern and example already in the schema. The description adds no format or case-handling 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 (return) and resource (compact view of one CVE) and enumerates exactly what the view contains (id, timestamps, status, summary, CVSS, CWEs, products, KEV flag, reference count). It also names the sibling it differs from (nvd_get_cve), so an agent can separate the two without opening either 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?

It routes the agent explicitly: configurations, references and raw payload are omitted, so 'use nvd_get_cve for those'. That gives a clear condition for choosing this tool versus its sibling. It stops short of stating broader when-not-to-use conditions (e.g., bulk retrieval, history), but the core routing decision is unambiguous.

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