check_batch_vulnerabilities

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: each item is billed as one API call, items outside coverage return 'outsideCoverage=true' and are not safe, and quota exceedance returns a 429 before any results are delivered without billing. Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description does not contradict them.

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 single paragraph with 4 clear sentences, each adding essential information. It begins with the core purpose, then details billing, usage context, and edge cases. While not split into sections, it is efficient and front-loaded. Slightly verbose for a very concise tool, but still 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but mentioned), 100% schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, usage distinction, billing model, coverage edge case, and quota handling. No gaps remain for an agent to understand invocation and result interpretation.

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% (all required and optional properties described with descriptions). The description reinforces the maximum of 100 items and the cost per item, and adds billing nuance and coverage behavior. This goes beyond the schema definitions, earning a score above the baseline of 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 that this tool checks vulnerabilities for up to 100 software packages or infrastructure products in a single request, using specific verbs ('check') and resource ('batch vulnerabilities'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'check_package_vulnerability' by targeting batch scenarios.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('instead of multiple check_package_vulnerability calls when you need to audit a lockfile, manifest, or dependency list') and provides guidance on handling items outside coverage ('treated as unknown risk, not safe') and quota limits ('429 returned before any results... no calls billed'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., single item), but the context implies it.

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