Get Trending Vulnerabilities

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds value by detailing the two internal API calls and the resulting combined set with a 'source' field and total count. This goes beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence adds essential information (what, no params, internal mechanics, output details). No superfluous words.

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 no parameters, readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and an output schema (exists but not displayed), the description fully explains the tool's behavior: two calls, combined result with source field and total count. The agent has enough context to use it correctly.

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 input schema has no parameters (100% coverage), and the description confirms it takes no parameters. Since there are zero parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description adds no extra meaning but is clear.

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 lists trending and anomalous GreyNoise vulnerability tags, specifies it takes no parameters, and explains the internal behavior of making two calls. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'get-tag-activity' which likely returns different data.

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 notes no parameters are required, making usage straightforward, but does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or provide when/when-not guidance. It is adequate for a simple list tool.

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