calculate_risk_score

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which are consistent with the description's claim of a read-only calculation. The description adds rich behavioral details: formula, multiplicative boosters, clamping, label bands, urgency encoding, and rate limits (Free: 30/hr, Pro: 500/hr). No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then provides formula, boosters, usage guidance, methodology source, and return type. It is well-structured but somewhat lengthy; each sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 the single parameter and the detailed description of the return object (including components, boosters, labels), the description is fully complete. It explains the algorithm, boosters, labels, urgency, and alternatives, providing all necessary context for an agent to use the tool 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?

The input schema has one parameter with a description, and coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the CVE identifier format and examples, enhancing understanding beyond the schema. This justifies a score of 4.

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 explicitly states it calculates a composite CVE risk score from 0-100 by fusing CVSS, EPSS, KEV, and PoC. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cve_lookup and exploit_lookup by stating 'Use to triage a single CVE without orchestrating cve_lookup + 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 clearly states when to use the tool: 'Use to triage a single CVE.' It also provides when not to use it and alternatives: 'PoC signal here is the local ExploitDB mirror only — for full multi-source exploit detail ... call exploit_lookup separately.'

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