ver_sumario

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal an important failure mode: some bulletins have free-text summaries that are parsed as 0 entries. However, it does not describe other behavioral traits such as error handling, data source freshness, or what happens with invalid CVEs.

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 tight and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then covers parameter semantics, and closes with an important caveat and alternative. Every sentence adds necessary information without 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 simplicity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description provides a reasonable picture: it describes the output as a flat list of articles with first-page data alert of the 0-entry fallback case. It could be more complete about error behavior or list limits, but for this single-parameter read tool it is sufficient.

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 schema only defines the property name 'cve' with zero description coverage, so the description's parameter guidance is essential. It compensates fully by explaining that the CVE can be from a bulletin (BOME-B/BX) or a summary (BOME-S/SX), adding meaning that the schema alone completely lacks.

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 tool's function: it provides a web view of a bulletin's summary as a flat list of articles with their first page. It also distinguishes itself from ver_bome by identifying ver_bome as the reliable fallback for free-text summaries, helping differentiate between sibling tools.

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 explains what input forms are accepted (bulletin CVE BOME-B/BX or summary CVE BOME-S/SX) and provides a concrete when-not-to-use condition: if the web summary is free text and returns 0 entries, use ver_bome instead. This gives clear routing guidance to an alternative tool.

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