CVE detail

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the useful trait that results are 'cached for a day,' but it is silent on NVD rate limits, behavior for unknown/invalid CVE ids, and whether auth or a key is required.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb, resource, source, and return fields, then appends the caching caveat. Nothing is wasted.

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, the description tells the agent what data comes back (description, CVSS, references) and notes caching. Only edge-case behavior (invalid ids, rate limiting, auth) is left uncovered.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100% and only one parameter, the schema already documents cve_id, its pattern, and an example. The description adds no format or semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

It gives a specific verb (look up), a scoped resource (a single CVE), the upstream source (NVD API 2.0), and the returned fields (description, CVSS, references). The word 'single' implicitly separates it from the bulk-checking sibling check_cves, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only implied: 'a single CVE' suggests this is for one-off lookups rather than batch checks like check_cves, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or prerequisite detail.

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