Known advisories for pinned dependencies

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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing cost ($0.01 USDC per call, Solana for crates and Base for npm), the settlement rule ('settled only if the answer exists'), local reads of the lockfile, and external service routing. This clarifies the non-idempotent, non-destructive paid-call profile that the annotations only imply.

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?

Front-loads the usage trigger, then input forms, routing, exclusions, and pricing in four dense sentences with no filler. Every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should ideally sketch the return shape (advisory IDs, severity, remediation); it implies a per-answer result via the settlement rule but never says what comes back. Everything else an agent needs to call it correctly is present.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the accepted lockfile filenames, that lockfile_path is read locally, the 100-package cap for the list form, and that ecosystem is required only with raw text or an explicit package list. It does not explain precedence when multiple input forms are supplied.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('known advisories for pinned dependencies') with its exact scope: lockfiles or up to 100 pinned packages. The sibling tools (scan_repo, get_scan_report, watch_*) cover repo/contract scanning and watchers, so an agent can tell this is the dependency-advisory lookup without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('Use before adding or upgrading a dependency, or to triage a lockfile') and exclusions ('Only registry packages are checked; workspace and git dependencies are skipped'). It also routes by ecosystem, telling the agent where each package type is checked.

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