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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns. It adds behavioral context by specifying the source of the advisory key (from a version's advisoryKeys), noting it returns a subset of fields and a link to osv.dev, and implying no side effects. However, it could mention that it only retrieves a single advisory and doesn't cover pagination or error behavior, but given annotations cover safety, this is sufficient.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded. The first two sentences clearly state purpose and return value; the rest provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter tools with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns and how to obtain the input, and it provides clear usage flow. No output schema exists, but the description details the return fields adequately. Sibling tools create a clear context, and the description fully addresses them.

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% and includes a helpful example. The description reinforces the parameter semantics by explaining that the advisoryKey is taken from get_package_version's advisoryKeys, which adds context beyond the schema. No other parameters exist, so the description effectively compensates for the single parameter's meaning.

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 gets a security advisory by its key, listing specific returned fields (title, CVE aliases, CVSS v3 score, link). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is not a search and should be used after get_package_version provides an advisory key, contrasting with the likely search-capable sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: only when you already have an advisory ID from get_package_version's advisoryKeys, and explicitly says there is no search here. It also tells the user to call get_package_version first to check vulnerabilities, and indicates this tool explains one advisory in depth, providing clear context and alternatives.

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