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

Annotations already mark readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds the scoring formula, multiplicative boosters, clamping to [0,100], label bands, urgency/SLA mapping, rate limits, and the limitation that PoC comes only from the local ExploitDB mirror. This goes far beyond what annotations provide and gives the agent a clear understanding of behavior.

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 long but every sentence serves a purpose: formula, boosters, labels, urgency, usage guidance, limitation, attribution, rate limits, and return object fields. It is structured from high-level purpose down to details, with no filler and a clear hierarchy.

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 composite risk-scoring tool with one input, the description covers the algorithm, edge-case boosters, output bands, urgency policy, rate limits, and scope limitations. An output schema exists, and the description still previews key return fields. This is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has a single parameter cve_id with 100% description coverage, including format and example. The description does not add new semantic meaning for the parameter beyond clarifying the tool consumes a single CVE ID, which is already evident from the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 states 'Composite CVE risk score (0-100) — fuses CVSS, EPSS, KEV, and PoC into a single agent-ready triage signal.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates from siblings by noting it avoids orchestrating cve_lookup + exploit_lookup separately, and explicitly contrasts with exploit_lookup for PoC detail.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Use to triage a single CVE without orchestrating cve_lookup + exploit_lookup separately' and 'for full multi-source exploit detail... call exploit_lookup separately.' This states when to use the tool, what it is not for, and names the alternative.

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