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

Annotations only say readOnly/idempotent/openWorld; the description adds real behavioral knowledge beyond that: navigation views truncate to top-level members, Implicit views return no members at all, unknown or non-view IDs yield a structured miss, and unparseable filter parts produce a disclosure-backed empty result. It also discloses pagination semantics via nextCursor, which is non-obvious for a 'direct members' list.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then edge cases; every sentence carries substantive routing or behavior information. There is mild redundancy, since weakness-membership-via-search is restated for the navigation and Implicit cases, but nothing is filler.

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 an output schema present, the description correctly avoids describing return shapes and instead covers the decision-relevant edge cases: truncation, empty Implicit views, structured misses, pagination, and unevaluated filter parts. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly in a knowledge-graph context 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: cursor pagination is scoped to 'remaining direct members' rather than any other collection, and it clarifies what a filter view's filterDefinition represents. The limit parameter's cap and byte budget are left entirely to 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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource (a CWE view) and enumerates exactly which fields are returned (objective, audience, status, source filter, notes, direct members). It also draws the boundary against cwe_get_hierarchy and cwe_search_weaknesses, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes: 'use cwe_get_hierarchy for navigation or cwe_search_weaknesses with viewId for weakness membership closure,' which names both alternatives and the conditions that select them. It further explains the Implicit/filter-defined case where the correct alternative is the search tool, including the case where the filter part isn't evaluated.

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