pentest_vuln_cve_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It usefully states that the lookup is passive and goes through the NVD API, but it omits API-key and rate-limit requirements, what the 'record' parameter changes, and whether the call has side effects.

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 definition is front-loaded and extremely brief, with no wasted wording, and the separate 'Passive' note stands out. The terseness borders on under-specification, but structurally it is clean.

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 four-parameter lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it leaves two parameters unexplained and does not describe the result shape or side effects. The purpose is clear, but an agent lacks enough information to invoke it confidently in all cases.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to explain all four parameters. It only repeats that a product/version is looked up and says nothing about product/version syntax, what limit controls, or what record does.

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 names a specific action and resource ('Look up published CVEs'), the data source ('NVD API'), and the scope ('product/version'). The word 'Passive' helps distinguish it from active scanning siblings, but the description does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Only 'Passive' hints at when this tool is appropriate, such as non-intrusive vulnerability research. It gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison to siblings such as exploit_search or the active vulnerability scanners, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name.

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