Calculate Risk Score

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false) indicate a safe, read-only operation. The description adds extensive behavioral context: the formula with weights, multiplicative boosters, clamping to [0,100], label bands, urgency encoding, the source of PoC data, methodology attribution, and rate limits (30/hr free, 500/hr pro). No contradiction with 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 description is detailed and front-loaded with the core purpose and formula. While it includes necessary details like boosters and rate limits, it is somewhat lengthy. However, every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical. It earns a 4 for being informative without being excessively verbose.

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?

Given that the tool has an output schema (implied by the return fields listed), the description covers the full context: purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details, parameter format, output structure, and limitations. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to misuse the 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 has one required parameter (cve_id) with a description of its format. The description does not add additional semantics for this parameter beyond what the schema already provides. With schema description coverage at 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed it.

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 that this tool calculates a composite CVE risk score using CVSS, EPSS, KEV, and PoC, with a detailed formula. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like cve_lookup and exploit_lookup by stating: 'Use to triage a single CVE without orchestrating cve_lookup + exploit_lookup separately' and that for full exploit detail, one should call exploit_lookup separately.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for triaging a single CVE) and when not to use it (for multi-source exploit detail, call exploit_lookup). It also notes the limitation that the PoC signal is from the local ExploitDB mirror only, which helps agents decide if they need additional tools.

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