get_cve

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what data sources are aggregated (a real behavioral trait: multi-source enrichment with confidence), but is silent on failure behavior for an unknown CVE ID, rate limits, and whether external lookups are cached or live. Read-only nature is only inferable from the name.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the output inventory, followed by the input instruction. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the field list is compact and scannable.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned data families, which is exactly what an agent needs to judge relevance. For a single-required-parameter lookup tool it is nearly complete; only edge-case behavior for invalid IDs is missing.

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 the single cve_id parameter already carries an example ('CVE-2023-44487'), so the baseline is 3. The description's example duplicates the schema's example rather than adding format rules, case handling, or validation behavior beyond it.

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 and resource ('Full detail for one CVE') and enumerates the exact data families returned (NVD CVSS, EchelonGraph score, EPSS, CISA-KEV, GHSA, CWE, references). The 'full detail for one CVE' framing implicitly contrasts it with the cve_summary sibling, so an agent can pick between them 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?

Gives the input form ('Pass a CVE ID like CVE-2023-44487'), which is genuine usage guidance, but never states when to prefer this over cve_summary, search_cves, or cve_exposure. Usage is only implied by the word 'full', leaving the agent to infer the single-lookup scope.

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