tech_stack_cve_audit

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: it is MCP-only, uses local DB mirrors, has a batch size of 50 for CVE candidates, costs 10 credits, and returns specific fields including next_calls. This enriches the annotation data without contradiction.

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 concise yet comprehensive, covering purpose, behavior, tier, cost, and output in a few sentences. Each sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 (multi-step composite), the description covers process, input, output fields, cost, and rate limits. With an output schema existing, the return structure is adequately described. No gaps remain.

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 (domain) with a description covering format and rejection criteria. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional semantics. A score of 3 is appropriate as per guidelines.

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 and CVE audit tool, listing specific actions (detects, queries, enriches, checks) and resources (technologies, CVEs, KEV findings, exploit findings). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is MCP-only, uses local DB mirrors, and has no tier gating.

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 explains the tool is identical for every tier and specifies cost and rate limits (10 credits per call, different limits for Free and Pro). It implicitly sets expectations for usage but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like cve_lookup or tech_fingerprint.

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