Bulk Get CVEs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the 20-item cap and the return shape {cves, missing, count}. The 'missing' field implies that some requested IDs may not be found, which is useful behavioral context the annotations don't capture.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the action and cap, the second states the return shape. Everything earns its place.

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?

There is an output schema present, so return values are documented there. The description covers the key behavioral notes (20 limit, enriched data, missing handling). For a simple 1-parameter, read-only tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, this is essentially complete. Minor gap: doesn't specify what 'enriched' means relative to the singular get_cve.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the cve_ids parameter fully ('CVE IDs (max 20)'). The description adds the return-format detail but not new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 'Fetch up to 20 enriched CVEs by ID in one call' — a specific verb (fetch), resource (CVEs), and scoping constraint (by ID, up to 20, in one call). It distinguishes from the sibling get_cve (singular) and bulk_get_threats by specifying the resource type and batch limit. Returns structure is also noted, adding clarity.

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 usage — use this when you need multiple CVEs in one call rather than calling get_cve repeatedly. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., when you need fewer than 20, or when get_cve is preferable). The sibling differentiation is implicit via the bulk/batch framing but not explicit.

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