get_nvd_entry_by_cve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the exact-match constraint and does not disclose failure behavior (error vs. null) for a missing CVE, or whether the record is cached/stale. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and target, with an inline example that earns its place by pinning the id format. No waste.

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 read-only lookup with full schema coverage, the definition is nearly sufficient. The only gap is return-shape expectation, since no output schema exists and the description says nothing about what an NVD entry contains or how misses are surfaced.

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 'cve' parameter is already documented with the same example format. The description's example duplicates the schema rather than extending it (e.g., no note on accepted casing or whether CVSS/CPE data is fetched). Baseline 3 for full 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?

Specific verb ('Look up'), specific resource ('a single NVD entry'), and a scoping qualifier ('by exact CVE id') with a concrete example. The 'single' phrasing implicitly separates it from the sibling list_nvd_entries, but the sibling is never named, so it falls short of a 5.

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 word 'exact' signals this is a precision lookup, which implies list_nvd_entries is the tool for browsing or partial matching, but the description never states when to use one over the other or what happens if the id is invalid/unknown. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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