security_fetch_cve_detail

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

The description declares 'Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent.' and mentions 'Verified source: NIST NVD. 1-hour cache.' Since no annotations are provided, the description adequately covers safety, caching, and source 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?

The description is seven sentences long, each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, safety, parameter format, usage guidance, alternative tool, source info, cache info, and feedback mechanism. No redundancy or fluff.

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 existence of an output schema, the description lists the return fields (description, CVSS base score, affected products, patch references, publish date) sufficiently. The tool is simple with one parameter, and all relevant context is covered.

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 has one parameter with no description (0% schema coverage). The description compensates fully by providing format 'CVE-YYYY-NNNNN', an example 'CVE-2021-44228', and stating it is required.

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 states 'Fetch full detail for a specific CVE by ID.' It clearly identifies the action and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like security_fetch_package_vulnerabilities and security_fetch_cve_risk_summary.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use this when you have a CVE ID and need complete detail beyond what a package scan returns.' It also directs to an alternative: 'Use security_fetch_package_vulnerabilities instead when you want all CVEs for a package version.' Additionally, it includes a feedback mechanism for gaps.

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