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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful domain context — that entries are filtered out of KEV and ranked by 30-day exploitation likelihood — but says nothing about result size behavior, ordering guarantees (is it sorted by EPSS descending?), or truncation.

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, the selection rule first and the default second. No filler, no repetition of the title, front-loaded with the distinguishing filter.

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, so the description could reasonably say more about what a returned entry looks like. With three parameters and only one documented in the schema, the description leaves minEpss and limit semantics entirely to inference, though the annotations do carry the safety profile.

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 only 33%: 'year' is documented in the schema, while 'limit' and 'minEpss' are not. The description partially compensates by explaining the default year scoping, but it never explains what minEpss thresholds do or how limit interacts with the maximum of 50. Partial compensation, not full.

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 resource and selection rule: highest-EPSS CVEs excluded from CISA KEV, with a 30-day exploitation horizon. This is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the siblings cve_priority or kev_recent, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

"Defaults to this year's CVE IDs" implies the common usage and gives a default behavior, which is useful. But there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool instead of cve_priority or kev_recent, and no exclusions or preconditions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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