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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that the tool returns 'live advisory context' and includes CISA ICS/OT advisories with affected industrial products, indicating a comprehensive multi-source lookup. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get complete details') and efficiently lists the key outputs before giving a use case. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description does an excellent job of conveying what the tool returns by enumerating seven distinct data categories, including the unique CISA ICS/OT advisory details. It also provides a practical use case, making the tool's broader context clear. The information is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to use this tool.

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% for all 4 parameters, with clear descriptions for each. The tool description lists the data types returned (CVSS, references, CPE, etc.) which partially maps to the include_* parameters, but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 the tool's function: 'Get complete details for a specific CVE' and enumerates the specific data categories (CVSS scores, references, CPE mappings, KEV status, EPSS score, exploit references, CISA ICS/OT advisories). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects (e.g., get_epss_score, check_kev_status).

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 provides a clear context for use: 'use this to enrich an OT/ICS or robot-cell TARA with live advisory context.' It implies when to choose this tool over more specialized ones, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. This matches 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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