lookup_cve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'look up full details' but does not specify whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or requires authentication. It also fails to mention any potential errors or limits. With an output schema present, the description could still benefit from clarifying what 'full details' entails.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose without any waste.

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 that an output schema exists (as indicated by context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. For a simple single-CVE lookup tool, the description is sufficiently complete, though it could mention what happens if the CVE is not found.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter, including a description and example value. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 action ('look up full details') and the resource ('a specific CVE by ID'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_cves' (which searches) and 'summarize_risk' (which summarizes).

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 implies the tool is for looking up a single CVE by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or typical use cases. The guidance is only implied by the sibling names.

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