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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' signals a read operation, and it discloses the specific output dimensions: evidence, recipe authority, and a bounded code/config/file change plan. This is reasonably transparent, though it does not explicitly assert zero side effects.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and indicates what the returned content covers. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It identifies the exact input needed and summarizes the output. It lacks only a more explicit usage note distinguishing it from related CVE tools, but the output schema compensates for return-value details.

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 input schema provides only a string field named 'cve' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description adds that the value must be 'one exact CVE,' which tells the agent to pass a precise CVE identifier rather than a query or partial identifier, but it does not provide format expectations or examples.

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 uses a specific verb and resource combination: it retrieves evidence, recipe authority, and a bounded change plan for one exact CVE. This clearly distinguishes it from search-oriented siblings like recipes_cve_search and from generic getters like recipes_get.

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 phrase 'for one exact CVE' implies the tool should be used when a specific CVE identifier is already known, not when searching or browsing. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving some inference required.

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