get_cve

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's job is narrower, and it does add real context: responses can be truncated and can be widened up to a 50000 character cap. It does not explain what the sections contain or whether 'all' is expensive, but the truncation disclosure is a meaningful behavioral trait.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the parameter-relevant advice is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of being cryptic about what is being fetched, but it does not waste words.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place to learn return shape, and it says nothing about the structure of a record or its sections. Combined with the missing id format guidance, an agent can call it but cannot predict the response.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It enumerates the valid section values and gives meaning plus a ceiling for max_characters, but the required 'id' parameter is completely undocumented (no expected format such as CVE-YYYY-NNNN), leaving a third of the surface unexplained.

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 verb 'Fetch' plus the enumerated sections (official, ai, research) makes the retrieval behavior reasonably clear, and the tool name supplies the CVE resource. However, the description never states what a 'section' is or that it returns a CVE record, and it does not distinguish the tool from the sibling search_cves.

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?

'Increase max_characters up to 50000 for truncated records' gives a concrete trigger for adjusting a parameter, which is genuine usage guidance. But there is no guidance on when to pick this tool over search_cves or search, and no statement of what to do when the id is unknown.

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