getVulnerability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any permission requirements, error behavior, or how includeEvidence affects the response. Saying 'retrieve' hints at a read operation but does not explicitly guarantee safety or explain side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and output scope. The phrases 'complete details' and 'all fields' are slightly redundant, but the description is appropriately concise and has no meaningful waste.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral and return context. It states that the response includes fields, evidence, and metadata, which is useful for a simple get-by-id tool, but it omits response structure, error conditions, and the role of includeEvidence. It is minimally viable but not 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 documents both parameters fully (vulnerabilityId and includeEvidence) with descriptions, giving high schema coverage. The description adds little beyond mentioning 'evidence' in the response, and it does not clarify the optional includeEvidence toggle, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 uses the verb 'Retrieve' and identifies the resource as 'a specific vulnerability', distinguishing it from the plural/list sibling tools like getVulnerabilities. It also lists the content scope (all fields, evidence, metadata), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies use when the agent needs complete details for a single known vulnerability (supported by the required vulnerabilityId), but it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives like getVulnerabilities or getAllVulnerabilityDetails, nor states when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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