Get vulnerability statistics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'without returning every matching record', implying aggregate output and non-destructive reads. However, it does not explain aggregation specifics (e.g., grouping, pagination) or any permissions/limits. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences, with the primary action and resource stated immediately. It avoids fluff and every sentence contributes: the first defines behavior, the second gives a use-case example.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described. The description gives a clear purpose and one usage example, but with no annotations and six parameters (all optional) lacking schema descriptions, the tool definition feels slightly under-specified for a fully self-contained agent evaluation.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only implicitly references 'critical' and 'open' parameters. Parameter names and enums in the schema provide some self-evident meaning, but the description adds virtually no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already shows.

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 uses specific verbs 'Count and summarize' with the resource 'vulnerabilities', clearly distinguishing this aggregation tool from sibling tools like get_vulnerability and search_vulnerabilities, which return records. It also gives an example question ('how many critical vulnerabilities are open') that reinforces the purpose.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: for questions requiring counts or summaries rather than full matching records. It provides a concrete example, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the bar for a 5.

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