Rank vulnerabilities by real-world risk

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds useful context without contradicting them. It discloses the maximum input size, the risk classification logic, and the specific data returned per row (KEV dates, ransomware use, EPSS, CVSS, SSVC).

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?

Three compact sentences lead with the core action, then detail output categories and fields, and end with a clear takeaway. No wasted words; every sentence contributes to selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 a single input parameter, rich annotations, and an existing output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the input format, size limits, risk ranking behavior, and the kind of information included. Nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already documents the single 'ids' parameter with 100% coverage万万, so the baseline is 3. The description adds beyond the schema by specifying the accepted ID formats (GHSA, PYSEC, GO, RUSTSEC) and clarifying the output categories, which helps an agent know what inputs are valid.

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 uses a specific verb ('Ranks') and a clearly defined resource: up to 100 CVE or advisory IDs. It explicitly names the output risk categories (act_now, high, medium, low) and the decision factors, making it easy to distinguish from the sibling tools.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you have a list of vulnerability IDs and need them prioritized by exploitation risk. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for ranking and prioritization tasks.

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