circl_cve_lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds the external CIRCL source, but does not mention rate limits, invalid-ID behavior, or what kind of vulnerability data is returned.

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 no wasted words. The verb, resource, identifier type, and source are all communicated efficiently.

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 simple one-parameter lookup with complete schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, because there is no output schema, it could do more to set expectations about the returned CVE data or the external service's limitations.

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 parameter is fully documented with an example format. The description does not add any parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Look up a CVE vulnerability') and names the external source (CIRCL). It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as get_cve_detail, search_cve, or circl_cve_recent, so the agent must infer which CVE lookup to use.

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 'by ID' implies the tool should be used when a CVE identifier is already known, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_cve_detail, search_cve, or circl_cve_recent, nor any stated exclusions.

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