Tech Stack CVE Audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructiveness. The description adds significant behavioral context: identical for all tiers, uses local DB mirrors, no tier gating, cost 10 tokens, rate limits (30/hr for free, 500/hr for Pro), and that IPs/internal hostnames are rejected. 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 front-loaded with the core composite purpose in the first sentence. It is comprehensive but somewhat dense, covering multiple aspects concisely. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured for easier scanning.

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 tool's complexity (composite, multiple steps), the description is thorough: it explains all steps, tier behavior, cost, rate limits, and explicitly lists return fields (domain, technologies, cves_by_tech, etc.). An output schema exists, so return values are well-covered. No gaps noted.

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% with one parameter 'domain'. The schema description adds meaning beyond type/format by specifying 'Target domain to fingerprint and CVE-audit (e.g. 'example.com'). IPs and internal hostnames are rejected.' This provides clear constraints and examples.

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 it is a 'Composite tech-stack + CVE audit' tool that detects technologies, queries CVEs, enriches with KEV deadlines, and checks exploit availability. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'tech_fingerprint' (just fingerprinting) and 'cve_lookup' (just CVE details).

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 implies usage for auditing a domain's technology stack and vulnerabilities, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., separate tech_fingerprint or cve_lookup). It mentions 'MCP-only, no REST endpoint' but lacks clear when-not or alternative guidance.

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