osv_query_purl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without mentioning what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or any side effects. For a query tool, this is insufficient.

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, direct sentence that is clear and free of redundancy. It is effectively front-loaded with the key action and input.

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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks information about return values, error handling, or when to prefer this over similar tools. It is missing contextual details that would help an agent decide.

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 fully describes the purl parameter (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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's action ('Query'), the data source ('OSV database'), the input method ('using a Package URL (purl)'), and the output purpose ('for known vulnerabilities'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like osv_query and osv_query_commit by specifying the purl input.

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 implies when to use it (when you have a purl), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. For example, it doesn't compare to osv_query or osv_batch.

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