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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable context beyond those: it costs $0.003, returns payment instructions for the Saylor endpoint, and requires no provider account. This gives an agent critical cost and invocation context without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second clarifies the tool's boundary, and the third communicates cost and access requirements. It is front-loaded and free of redundant wording.

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?

With a single parameter, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description provides everything needed to call the tool correctly: the input, the expected output content, the cost, and the payment/access behavior. No critical information is missing.

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 the single 'cve' parameter is already documented with an example (CVE-2021-44228). The description reinforces that the parameter identifies a CVE but does not add substantive new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 'Resolve' with a clear resource, CVE, and enumerates the concrete outputs: description, status, CVSS metrics, weakness identifiers, and vendor/reference links. It also distinguishes itself from security-scanning tools by stating 'This does not scan a system or prove safety.'

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 description clearly indicates when to use the tool: when a CVE identifier needs to be resolved into published vulnerability details. It also gives an explicit when-not boundary by stating it does not scan a system or prove safety, though it does not name a specific alternative tool.

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