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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the behavioral constraint of max 100 and 'one query', but does not disclose return format, error handling, or partial failure behavior.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and includes a concise usage tip. Every word earns its place.

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 simple, read-only batch tool, the description covers the basic purpose and limit, and annotations cover safety. However, without an output schema, it does not specify what 'details' includes (e.g., which fields beyond KEV/EPSS) or behavior for invalid CVE IDs, leaving some gaps.

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%, with all three parameters documented (cve_ids, include_kev, include_epss). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond framing the batch nature, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 the verb ('Get details'), resource ('multiple CVEs'), and scope ('in one query (max 100)'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_cve_details by emphasizing batch capability, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 phrase 'Efficient for bulk vulnerability assessment' provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, such as pointing to get_cve_details for single CVE lookups.

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