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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying that the result is empty when no passage exists in the index, which is a useful edge-case behavior beyond the annotations. It also transparently notes the shared search page with the sibling 'search'.

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 succinct and front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence. The second sentence adds two useful clarifications without fluff. No wasted words, and the structure supports quick comprehension.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and no output schema, and the description explains the output as 'index cites' and the empty-result case. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact return format or pagination, but for a simple read-only lookup tool it is largely complete.

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?

The schema already fully documents the 'query' parameter as 'CVE id or incident name.' The description essentially repeats this and adds an example CVE ID. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds only marginal semantic value, so a baseline score 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 a specific action ('Retrieve index cites') on a specific resource ('named incident or CVE'), with an illustrative example. It also differentiates from the search sibling by noting it shares the same search page but is scoped to incidents. This is enough for an agent to know what the tool does.

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 usage context is implied: an agent can infer to use this when the query is a named incident or CVE. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over 'search' or other find_* siblings. The line 'Same search page as search' hints at a relationship but does not give clear routing guidance.

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