Query OSV

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint: false), is idempotent (idempotentHint: true), and is not destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds value by stating it queries an external endpoint (openWorldHint: true) and warns that advisory text is untrusted data, which is critical behavioral context for safety. However, it doesn't describe what happens if both query types are provided, max results, or error handling, so some burden remains unaddressed.

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 covering purpose, contrasts with localization, and a critical security warning. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and followed by important behavioral context.

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 the tool has an output schema (reducing the need to describe return values), 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no required parameters, the description provides essential context for usage patterns and security warnings. It is slightly incomplete in not specifying the exact parameter combinations allowed (e.g., commit vs. ecosystem/package exclusivity), but the agent can infer this from the endpoint's documentation and the description's mention of 'either...or'.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the JSON schema provides no descriptions for the 4 parameters. The description partially compensates by explaining the two query patterns: commit alone, or ecosystem + package_name with optional version. However, it does not specify which parameters are required for each pattern (e.g., commit is standalone, version is optional with ecosystem/package), leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 queries the fixed official OSV endpoint for either an ecosystem/package with optional version, or a commit hash. This is a specific verb ('query') and resource ('OSV endpoint'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vuln_search_cves and vuln_get_cve by targeting a different vulnerability database.

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 provides clear context by stating the two modes of operation (ecosystem/package+version, or commit hash) and explicitly notes that this tool does not inspect local packages or execute package code. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like vuln_get_cve or vuln_search_cves, which could be useful for an AI agent deciding between them.

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