vulners_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful information: 'Free, no API key required' addresses authentication requirements. 'Look up' implies a read-only operation, but it does not specify return format, error behavior, or pagination. For a simple lookup tool, this is moderately transparent but lacks some context.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and purpose. Every sentence earns its place: 'Look up...' for purpose, 'Free, no API key required' for access, and 'Supports CVE, EDB, GHSA IDs' for input guidance. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what to look up, where, and what ID formats are supported. It omits details about the return payload, but that is less critical given the tool's simplicity. It is nearly complete, only lacking explicit mention of invalid ID handling.

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 describes the 'id' parameter with examples (CVE-2024-1234, EDB-ID:12345), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds value by explicitly listing supported ID families (CVE, EDB, GHSA), which goes slightly beyond the schema's examples by including GHSA. This enriches the agent's understanding of accepted inputs.

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 the tool's purpose: to look up a specific vulnerability or exploit by ID on Vulners. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vulners_search and vulners_exploit, which are search and exploit-specific lookups respectively. The verb 'look up' and resource 'vulnerability or exploit by ID' are specific and unambiguous.

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 makes clear that this tool is used when a specific ID is available, stating 'by ID' and listing supported ID types (CVE, EDB, GHSA). It implies usage context without explicitly mentioning alternatives or exclusions. However, because siblings exist for searching (vulners_search), the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool when an ID is known.

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