shodan_cve_lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral insight by specifying the return fields (CVSS, EPSS, references, affected products), which helps set expectations. No contradictions or unmentioned 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 description is two short sentences: the first states the action, the second lists return content. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with read-only annotations, the description covers the purpose and return values sufficiently, even without an output schema. The mention of specific data types (CVSS, EPSS) gives enough context for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 already fully documents the sole parameter (cve_id) with format and example, so the description adds no additional syntactic detail. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Look up' and resource 'specific CVE by ID', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like shodan_cve_search which search by criteria. It also lists the returned data, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

While not explicitly naming alternatives, the description makes clear this tool is for when you have a specific CVE ID, implying it is not for general search. The sibling tools' names (e.g., shodan_cve_search) provide context, but the description itself could be more explicit about when not to use it. This is clear context without exclusions.

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