Live CVE Scan (osv.dev)

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it queries an external live API (network dependency) and supports specific package managers, enriching the behavioral profile without contradicting annotations.

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 core description is three sentences and front-loaded with purpose and differentiator. The example block is helpful but somewhat redundant; overall it's concise without unnecessary filler.

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?

For a moderate-complexity tool with good schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, alternative, and ecosystem support. It lacks output or failure details but those are not critical for this scan tool.

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 input schema describes both parameters clearly with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to add much. It does not provide syntax or format details beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Real-time vulnerability scan using the osv.dev API' – a specific verb and resource. It lists supported ecosystems and explicitly contrasts with depsonar_audit, distinguishing it from siblings.

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?

Clearly states when to prefer this tool over depsonar_audit by contrasting live vs local audit. Also notes no API key needed, providing actionable decision criteria for the agent.

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