CVE lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-annotated context: the data source (Shodan CVEDB), that it is free and requires no API key, and which enrichment fields come back. It doesn't cover rate limits or response shape, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource, source, and returned fields; no filler and nothing that could be trimmed without losing signal.

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 lookup with no output schema, an agent has enough: what it queries, the source, the identifier format, and the field families returned. The one missing piece is how this relates to the sibling shodan_cves list tool.

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 schema itself documents the CVE-YYYY-NNNN format, so the description carries no additional parameter burden. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does all the parameter work.

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 CVE in Shodan CVEDB') and enumerates the data categories returned (CVSS, EPSS, KEV, CPEs, references). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling shodan_cves, which an agent must infer is the list/browse counterpart.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the 'free, no API key' note, but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over shodan_cves, shodan_cpes, or shodan_exploits. The closest thing to guidance is the cost/auth aside rather than an alternative selection rule.

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