security_fetch_cve_risk_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that it is a parallel call, explains the meaning of UNKNOWN ('UNKNOWN means all upstream sources were unreachable — not that risk is low'), and notes rate limit (60/minute) and no auth required, all beyond annotations.

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 is information-dense but not overly long. It front-loads the purpose and includes necessary usage details. Slightly verbose with the report_feedback instruction, but that adds value.

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 an output schema (not shown) and the description explains return values (verdicts and patch availability) and the meaning of UNKNOWN, it is complete for the complexity of the tool.

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% and the schema already explains cve_id with an example. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so a baseline of 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 'Instant CVE risk verdict' and specifies it combines CVSS severity, CISA KEV exploitation status, and EPSS probability. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like security_fetch_cve_detail or security_fetch_cve_epss by providing a composite verdict.

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?

It explicitly states the tool is 'For security engineers triaging vulnerabilities after fetch_cve_watch fires' and provides a fallback instruction to call report_feedback if the result doesn't serve the user's need, with specific parameters.

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