get_tool_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result includes install method, module, URL, install status and management commands, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about what happens for an unknown tool_name or any rate limits. Given annotations carry the main burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The second sentence enumerating return fields is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Since an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, so its core obligation is purpose plus routing. Purpose is covered; what's missing is any signal about when to prefer this over list_tools, check_installed, or get_module_info, and what happens on a bad tool name.

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% with a single documented parameter, so the baseline 3 applies. The description adds no format, casing, or matching-rule detail (e.g., exact name vs alias) beyond the schema's 'Name of the tool to look up.'

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a cybersecurity tool') and even enumerates the fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings like get_module_info or check_installed, which also return tool/module metadata.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. The description never mentions list_tools (browse the catalog) or check_installed (installation state), even though this tool overlaps heavily with both, leaving the agent to infer routing from the name alone.

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