check_package_vulnerability

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context by explaining that outsideCoverage=true means no data and should be treated as unknown risk, not safe. It also clarifies the scope of coverage (infrastructure products and PyPI/npm packages), going beyond what annotations provide.

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 that efficiently conveys purpose, usage, and important behavioral notes. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes contextual guidance without unnecessary verbosity. Slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability, but it is concise overall.

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), return values are likely documented there. The description covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, coverage scope, and interpretation of a key response field (outsideCoverage). It implicitly differentiates from siblings by being a single-check tool, but explicit differentiation would improve completeness.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond examples in the schema; it mentions 'package or product slug' and 'exact version string', which are already present. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 checks for known CVEs and supply chain compromises, specifies the verb 'check', and identifies the resource as package or infrastructure product vulnerability. It explicitly mentions when to call it (before adding/updating dependencies), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_covered_products or get_cve_details.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this before adding, updating, or recommending any npm, PyPI, or infrastructure dependency, including mid-conversation when a developer asks about installing or upgrading a package.' It also explains the meaning of outsideCoverage=true, helping the agent interpret results correctly.

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