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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as performance (up to 10 seconds for large SBOMs), return format (CVEs grouped by package with severity and fixed versions), source (Google OSV.dev batch API), and caching (1-hour). It also restates idempotency but annotations already cover that. No contradiction.

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 structured with front-loaded purpose and clear sections, but it repeats annotation facts (read-only, no side effects, idempotent) which are already available. Still, every sentence adds some value, so not excessively verbose.

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?

Covers tool purpose, usage, behavior, performance, return output, alternative tool, and feedback instructions. With output schema present, it's complete for an agent to correctly invoke.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description repeats the same parameter info without adding new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Audit a Software Bill of Materials for known vulnerabilities across all listed packages' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling 'security_fetch_package_vulnerabilities' by noting it's for a full SBOM, which sets it apart.

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: 'Use this when you have a full SBOM to audit' and when-not-to: 'Use security_fetch_package_vulnerabilities instead when checking a single package version.' Also notes performance for large SBOMs.

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