Get Vulnerability Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral context: it accepts two ID formats, returns detailed fields, and explains exploit ranking order. No contradiction with 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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main purpose. Each sentence adds useful information (accepted IDs, return fields, ranking). While detailed, it is not overly verbose for the complexity of the tool.

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's complexity (single param, no output schema), the description covers return fields comprehensively and explains ranking. It does not describe response format or error handling, but the annotations and schema provide sufficient context for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100% with a regex pattern. The description adds value by explaining that both CVE-IDs and EIP-IDs are accepted, providing examples and clarifying that EIP-IDs are for pre-CVE entries. This goes beyond the schema's pattern definition.

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 'Get a full intelligence brief for a specific vulnerability,' specifying a verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like search_vulnerabilities (search) and get_exploit_code (code snippets) by focusing on comprehensive intelligence.

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 usage: use when you have a CVE/EIP ID and need a full brief. It does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives like get_exploit_analysis or search_vulnerabilities, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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