Security advisories for a package

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds real context beyond them: the upstream data source (GitHub Advisory Database), the EPSS exploit-likelihood signal, and a cost disclosure ('Uses 2 API requests'). It does not mention rate limits, pagination, or what an empty result means, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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 tight sentences: capability first, the key filtering behavior second, sibling routing and cost last. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so (severity, affected and fixed versions, EPSS exploit likelihood). Combined with the cost signal and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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%, so every parameter including the ecosystem enum and min_severity is already documented. The description only restates the version filter semantics already present in the schema ('Without it, every advisory ever published is listed'), adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (known vulnerabilities/CVEs and malware reports from the GitHub Advisory Database) for one package, and enumerates what is returned (severity, affected/fixed versions, EPSS). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling security tools, which operate at repository level rather than package level.

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?

Explicitly says 'Pass version to see only advisories that affect it', giving a concrete usage condition, and names the two sibling tools to combine with for repository-level analysis. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool (e.g. when a repo-level audit is the actual goal), so it is strong but not complete routing guidance.

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