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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the base safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: rate limits (30/hr Free, 500/hr Pro), the exact return structure ({findings, total, by_severity, summary}), and an important edge case where 'fixed_in' is omitted for open-ended version ranges, affecting remediation copy. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though not to the level of a full protocol explanation.

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 information-dense but well-organized: first sentence gives the core purpose, then rate limits, return shape, and a detailed edge case. Every sentence carries substantive information; no filler. It is longer than minimal but justified by the tool's complexity and the value of the edge-case explanation.

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 tool with one parameter and a rich output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, usage boundaries, rate limits, response format, and a nuanced behavior (fixed_in omission). Since an output schema exists, return values are already documented, but the description still explains the shape and key edge cases, making it exceptionally complete for an agent to select and invoke it 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 schema already provides 100% coverage of the 'packages' parameter with field descriptions, examples, and constraints. The description reinforces this by explicitly stating the maximum of 50 items, noting that only 'name' and 'version' are used and extra fields ignored, and reiterating the example. This adds operational detail beyond the schema, though the schema itself is already strong.

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 starts with 'Audit project dependencies... against CVE database: find known vulnerabilities in your package list,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from cve_lookup ('use cve_lookup for single CVE'), making it clear this is for bulk dependency scanning.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use for dependency security scanning; use cve_lookup for single CVE.' Also specifies bulk query limits (up to 50 packages per call, same for Free and Pro) and rate limits, giving clear operational context for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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