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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the 'Read-only' line earns nothing, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses result ordering (most urgent first), the fields returned (what to do, due date, CVEs, sources, source sentence, feed URLs) and the language of the summary. It also adds an output-side obligation ('Relay the citation') that the annotations cannot express. Freshness, caching or coverage limits are not mentioned, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 resource and the required input, followed by the return shape and two short operational notes. The middle sentence is a long comma-separated list, but every item is substantive rather than 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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so concretely (priority order, remediation, deadlines, CVEs, sources, feed URLs). What remains thin is the parameter side — stance's three modes and the limit range are left entirely to the schema — but for a three-optional-parameter lookup this is close to sufficient.

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 limit, stance and technologies are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the technologies input ('the technologies you use') and adds nothing about how stance or limit change the result, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (security advisories from vendors, national bodies and CISA KEV) plus the transformation applied (summarised in Japanese, prioritised by urgency). No sibling tool covers advisories, so an agent can route here without ambiguity.

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 'give the technologies you use' implies the calling condition (user supplies a tech stack) and the schema confirms technologies is the driving input, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or reference to an alternative tool. 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.