security_fetch_cve_detail

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description confirms 'Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent.' and adds 'Verified source: NIST NVD. 1-hour cache.' This provides useful context about data freshness and reliability.

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?

Every sentence adds value: purpose, traits, parameter, usage guidance, source/cache, and fallback instruction. The structure is logical and concise, with no redundancy.

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?

Given the simple tool (one parameter, output schema present), the description fully covers purpose, parameters, return fields, source, caching, and usage guidance. It also specifies when to use an alternative tool and how to report gaps.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage for the single parameter, including its format and required status. The description repeats this information without adding new semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Fetch' and resource 'full detail for a specific CVE by ID'. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool security_fetch_package_vulnerabilities, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when you have a CVE ID') and when not to ('use security_fetch_package_vulnerabilities instead'). Also provides fallback instructions for requesting feedback if the tool's output is insufficient.

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