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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses 'keyless, read-only,' tells the agent the first resolved IP is used for a host name, and describes the fetch behavior (one cached KEV fetch, one batched EPSS request). It omits error/edge behavior for unresolvable hosts, but the safety and network profile is well covered.

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 action and method, then ranking logic, then the resolution caveat and behavioral notes. Dense but each sentence carries information; mildly packed rather than wasteful.

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 one-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers input handling, processing, output priority tiers, and read-only/keyless behavior. Sufficient for correct invocation; only granular return shape is left implicit, which is minor given no output schema.

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% for the single 'target' param, so baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by stating the host-name-to-first-resolved-IP resolution rule, which the schema does not mention.

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 and resource ('prioritise a host's internet-exposed CVEs') and explains the exact enrichment pipeline (Shodan InternetDB CVEs -> CISA KEV + FIRST EPSS). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cve_lookup, kev_check, and epss_score, which it composes rather than duplicates.

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 makes clear when this applies (you have a host and want patch ordering) and names its data source, host_exposure. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name the single-CVE alternatives, but the context is unambiguous.

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