security_fetch_cve_risk_summary

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it explains the parallel call nature, rate limit (60/minute), auth requirement ('No auth required'), and the meaning of UNKNOWN (upstream unreachable). This goes beyond the minimal information needed.

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 well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then details verdicts, clarifies UNKNOWN, lists rate limit and auth, gives usage context, and ends with fallback instructions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's output (verdicts), error handling (UNKNOWN meaning), usage context, rate limits, auth, and a fallback procedure. Given the complexity of the tool and presence of an output schema, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 only parameter is cve_id, which is self-explanatory. The schema has zero description coverage, but the parameter name is clear. The description does not add additional formatting or example beyond the name, but it's sufficient given the simplicity.

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 it provides an 'Instant CVE risk verdict' combining multiple sources like CVSS, CISA KEV, and EPSS. It enumerates possible verdicts and explains UNKNOWN. It also specifies its role after fleet_cve_watch fires, distinguishing it from sibling tools like security_fetch_cve_detail and security_fetch_cve_epss.

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 targets 'security engineers triaging vulnerabilities after fetch_cve_watch fires', providing a clear context of use. It also gives a fallback action (report_feedback) for unsatisfactory responses. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but the use case is well-defined.

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