cve_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Fetch full details and references', which indicates a read operation but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return format, potential errors, or any constraints. The description adds minimal context beyond the action.

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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full details and references'), with an example. No wasteful 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema. The description covers the purpose and the parameter adequately. However, it could be more complete by explicitly contrasting with cve_search, but given the low complexity, it is largely complete.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter, but the description explicitly explains it as a 'specific CVE id' and provides an example (CVE-2024-3094). This gives the agent clear guidance on what to pass, and the parameter name is self-explanatory.

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 'Fetch full details and references for a specific CVE id', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'cve_search' by emphasizing a specific CVE id rather than searching, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for looking up a known CVE ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over cve_search or provide any exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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