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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses non-obvious behavior: fields are returned as claims with authority, known/unknown status semantics are defined, null means Daystruct looked and holds nothing, and exploitation status is never reported false from a partial catalog. This is rich behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses compact, information-dense sentences for the authority, status, and null semantics. No sentence is wasted; the length is justified by the subtle semantics it needs to convey.

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 no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back: affected package/version, fix version, severity, known-exploited flag, plus how to interpret status, authority, nulls, and missing exploitation data. This is sufficient for an agent to know what the tool returns and what it means.

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 has no description for the cve parameter, but the description clarifies that it is a vulnerability identifier such as a CVE. Since there is only one required parameter and the identifier type is named, the description sufficiently compensates for the schema's lack of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: given a vulnerability identifier such as a CVE, return held information about the affected package, fix version, severity, and known-exploited status. It also distinguishes the tool from package-oriented workflows by saying to use it when you have an identifier rather than a package you are running.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when you have an identifier rather than a package you are running. It also clarifies important boundary behavior, such as null meaning no other Daystruct tool will have the value either, which helps the agent decide whether additional lookups are worthwhile.

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