tech_stack_cve_audit

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: data is sourced from local DB mirrors (no external APIs), consistent across tiers, batch size of 50 CVEs, and cost per call. No contradictions 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 a cohesive paragraph (~80 words) that front-loads the main purpose. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be more terse, but remains clear and well-structured.

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?

The description thoroughly covers the tool's composite nature, data sources, lack of tier gating, cost, rate limits, and output structure (listing fields). Given an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand and invoke 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 single parameter 'domain' has a schema description that adds meaning beyond type and constraints, specifying that IPs and internal hostnames are rejected. With 100% schema coverage, the description compensates by clarifying acceptable input, raising the score above baseline 3.

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 the tool performs a composite tech-stack and CVE audit, including technology detection, CVE lookup, enrichment with CISA KEV, and exploit checks. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cve_lookup or tech_fingerprint by being a combined, one-stop audit.

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 specifies the tool is MCP-only, has no REST endpoint, no tier gating, and rejects IPs and internal hostnames. It provides cost and rate limit details. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this composite tool versus individual specialized siblings like cve_lookup or exploit_lookup.

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