CVE Lookup

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the aggregation sources (NVD/NIST, CISA KEV, FIRST EPSS), which tells the agent the data is a merged external snapshot. It does not mention rate limits, caching, or behavior for an unknown CVE ID.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the purpose and enumerates the returned fields, followed by a short source-attribution sentence. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the highest-value information leads.

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 explained, yet the description usefully previews the payload shape. Combined with annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete; only error behavior for an unresolvable CVE ID is unaddressed.

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% and the schema already documents the accepted formats (CVE-2021-44228, case-insensitivity, bare 2021-44228). The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for fully-covered schema 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 (look up) and resource (CVE by ID) and enumerates the exact payload returned: CVSS, vector, CWE, dates, references, KEV status, EPSS. It implicitly differentiates from siblings known_exploited and epss_score by presenting itself as a single aggregate lookup, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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 only implied — the required cve_id makes it obvious this is called when a CVE identifier is in hand. There is no guidance on when to prefer this aggregate lookup over the narrower known_exploited or epss_score siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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