euvd_lookup_by_id

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It establishes the authoritative data source, but says nothing about behavior on an unknown ID (empty result vs error), record completeness, rate limits, or authentication — gaps that matter little for a simple read but are still undisclosed.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the two accepted ID formats. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs trimming.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should at least sketch what a lookup returns (advisory/CVSS/exploitation fields) or what a miss looks like, and it does neither.

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 0% and the single parameter is just a minLength-3 string, so the description must supply the format. It does, via concrete CVE-2024-3400 and EUVD-2026-107265 examples that clarify the two accepted identifier grammars.

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 (a vulnerability record by ID) and names the authoritative source (ENISA European Vulnerability Database). It implicitly distinguishes exact-ID lookup from the sibling euvd_search_vulnerabilities, but never names that sibling 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?

The phrase 'a specific CVE ID ... or EUVD ID' implies this is the exact-match path and the format examples make the input obvious, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of euvd_search_vulnerabilities as the alternative for keyword/range queries.

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