CVE Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is safe and deterministic. The description adds value by detailing the return fields (description, severity, CVSS score, etc.), providing context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 efficient sentences with zero fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the supporting details follow immediately. Every word 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?

Since the tool has an output schema, the description need not explain return structure. The description covers purpose, return content, and the single required parameter. It is adequate for a simple lookup tool with strong annotations.

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% with param cve_id already described as 'CVE identifier (e.g., CVE-2024-3400)'. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'look up' and the resource 'specific CVE identifier', and lists the returned fields (description, severity, CVSS score, etc.). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like bulk_get_cves or get_cve_intelligence by focusing on a single identifier's details.

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 specifies when to use (for a specific CVE), but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or mention alternative tools like bulk_get_cves for multiple CVEs or get_cve_intelligence for broader intelligence. The purpose is clear enough for inference, but lacks explicit exclusion.

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