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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the data source (OSV.dev), free tier eligibility, and output fields. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling (e.g., unknown package), or limitations (e.g., max version length beyond schema). No contradiction with annotations as none exist.

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 core action and key details. No extraneous words; every sentence adds value. Efficient and clear.

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 tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose, supported ecosystems, return fields, and cost status. Minor omissions: what happens if no vulnerabilities are found, or if the package/version is invalid. Still, completeness is high for the tool's scope.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context that the tool operates on a single package@version and lists ecosystems, but this does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema definitions. Baseline of 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 checks a single package@version for known vulnerabilities via OSV.dev, specifies supported ecosystems, and describes the return fields (CVE IDs, severity, fixed versions, references). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_cves' and 'lookup_cve' which focus on general CVE search rather than package-specific checks.

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 implies usage for individual package vulnerability checks but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. No exclusions or scenario guidance are provided, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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