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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the payload contents (ranges, fixed versions, exploit conditions with their source sentence, summary, sources) and a 120-day retention cutoff that returns an error. The retention limit in particular is a constraint an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the id contract, then the return shape and error case. No filler and nothing repeated for its own sake.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by summarizing exactly what comes back. Combined with the id namespace rules and the error condition, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first attempt.

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 `id` parameter already documents the accepted formats, case-insensitivity, and alias resolution with a regex pattern. The description restates the same facts rather than adding new constraint detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with explicit cardinality ('Read one advisory in full by id'), which cleanly separates it from the plural sibling get_advisories. It also enumerates the id namespaces (CVE, GHSA, MAL, Patchwire) so the agent knows exactly what kind of key to supply.

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?

'Use it after get_advisories or list_feed gave you an id' names the producing siblings and the condition under which this tool applies, giving clear routing instead of leaving the agent to infer. Failure conditions ('unknown id, or one older than 120 days, returns an error') further bound when a call will succeed.

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