ssvc_verdict

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

The description goes beyond annotations (readOnlyHint: true, etc.) by detailing the exact behavioral differences between tiers: preview returns decision points and provenance without the computed decision; full adds the computed Act/Attend/Track/Track* decision, per-level reasoning, CISA KEV cross-check, and AFTA-signed receipt. It also discloses rate limits, credit cost, and authentication requirements, providing full transparency.

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 well-structured but somewhat lengthy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses clear sections for tiers. Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more concise. Still, the information density is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains what each tier returns, including the decision points, provenance, computed decision, envelope, reasoning, KEV cross-check, and receipt. It also covers rate limits, costs, and authentication. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. For the 'tier' parameter, it explains what each value returns and the associated cost/authentication. For the 'cve' parameter, it clarifies it's required and gives an example. This added context helps the agent understand the trade-offs and prerequisites.

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's purpose: 'TensorFeed's signed SSVC patch-urgency decision for one CVE'. It explains the two tiers (preview returns decision points and provenance; full adds computed decision, envelope, reasoning, KEV cross-check, receipt). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling verdict tools like failover_verdict or stack_safety_verdict.

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 guidance on when to use each tier: preview is free but rate-limited (10 calls per day per IP), full costs 1 credit and requires a TENSORFEED_TOKEN. It explicitly states the required CVE id. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use this tool (e.g., for other CVE lookup tools), the tier differentiation and requirements give strong usage context.

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